JUDGMENT :

Madhuresh Prasad, J.

1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

2. This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 04.09.2017 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Vaishali at Hajipur and order dated 06.12.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge I-cum-Special Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Criminal Appeal No. 85 of 2017 arising out of Bhagwanpur Police Station (for brevity, PS) Case No. 130 of 2016 registered under Sections 363, 302, 376D, 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity, IPC) and Sections 4, 6, 8 and 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

3. The above stated Bhagwanpur PS Case No. 130 of 2016 was initially registered against unknown for the offences punishable under Section 363 of IPC on the basis of written report of the informant, who claimed that his grand-daughter aged about4 years was missing since 05.08.2016. Subsequently, the dead body of victim was recovered after 3-4 days from behind the Bathan of the petitioner and, accordingly, Section 302 and other sections were added. The prosecution witnesses as well as police claimed that the petitioner as well as co-accused Kundan Kumar were apprehended and confessed their guilt disclosing that they not only raped, but also committed murder of deceased.

4. The petitioner was remanded in the above stated case on 10.08.2016 and after remand, he claimed himself to be juvenile. The Juvenile Justice Board conducted the inquiry to ascertain the age of the petitioner and subsequently, the petitioner was found below 18 years of age, but taking the seriousness and nature of the offence, the Juvenile Justice Board referred the matter to the Children Court for trial. The petitioner moved before the Juvenile Justice Board for bail, but his prayer for bail was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 04.09.2017 and subsequently, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 85 of 2017 for grant of bail, but the appeal was too rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge I-cum-Special Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur vide order dated 06.12.2017.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is no cogent evidence against the petitioner except suspicion as well as so called confessional statement that too, before the police. He further submits that the petitioner has been implicated in this case due to village politics and land dispute and moreover, petitioner does not have any criminal antecedent and there is nothing on the record to show that the release of the petitioner shall bring him into the association of known criminals nor there is anything to show that the release of the petitioner shall expose morally, physically or psychologically.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor refuted the above stated submissions pointing out that the dead body of victim was recovered from behind the Bathan of the petitioner and when the sniffer dog was pressed in service, the said sniffer dog entered into the Bathan of the petitioner and subsequently, co-accused Kundan Kumar as well as this petitioner were arrested and they confessed their guilt.

7. Having heard the contentions of the parties, I went through record as well as case diary. Admittedly, the case was initially lodged against unknown persons meaning thereby, none had seen the petitioner and his associate taking away the victim from her Bathan. The perusal of entire case diary goes to show that not a single prosecution witness claimed to have seen the petitioner along with victim girl and except the so called confessional statement of petitioner and co-accused that too before police as well as suspicion, there appears to be nothing against the petitioner, who is in jail custody for more than four years and seven months without any substantive progress in his trial. Co-accused Kundan Kumar has already been granted bail by this Court in Cr. Revision No. 1204