Sashi Bhusan Singh @ Sashi Bhusan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL REVISION No.344 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-485 Year-2022 Thana- UDWANTNAGAR District- Bhojpur ====================================================== 1.

Sashi Bhusan Singh @ Sashi Bhusan Kumar Son Of Shankar Dayal Singh @ Pankaj Dayal Singh R/O-Bampali, P.S.-UDWANT Nagar, Distt.- BHOJPUR, Ara 2.

Abhishek Kumar Son Of Mundrika Yadav R/O-Bampali, P.S.-UDWANT Nagar, Distt.-BHOJPUR, Ara ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Manoj Kumar, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Akhileshwar Dayal, APP For the Informant : Mr. Amit Kumar Mallick, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 22-11-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.

2. Petitioners in the present case are seeking setting aside of the order dated 21.03.2023 passed in B.P. No.1065 of 2023 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st, Bhojpur at Ara whereby and whereunder he has refused to grant bail to the petitioners.

3. A perusal of the records would show that even though the petitioners are said to have been declared juvenile vide order contained in Annexure- '2' to the present application, the petitioners chose to file only a regular bail application before the learned Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Ara. There is nothing on

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.344 of 2023(5) dt.22-11-2023 2/2 the record to show that the petitioners applied for bail before the Juvenile Justice Board. As per the scheme of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2015'), in case the Juvenile Justice Board does not grant bail to a juvenile, he has his remedy available under Section 101 of the Act of 2015. It is only when an appeal under Section 101 is rejected, the revisional provision contained under Section 102 of the Act of 2015 could have been invoked.

4. The present revision application, as framed, cannot proceed. It is dismissed accordingly.

5. Let the records be placed before the learned Registrar General of the High Court to take adequate measures with the Registry people who are dealing with the stamp reporting to ensure that such matters are duly scrutinized at the threshold to avoid wastage of Court's time.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) arvind/- U T