IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.872 of 2011 Raushan Kumar son of Ballam Singh, resident of village Bhabhangama, P.S. Lakhisarai, District Lakhisarai through his father and natural guardian. … Petitioner. Versus The State Of Bihar … Opp. Party. ----------- 2. 26.07.2011 The accused- petitioner has preferred this revision application under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 against the order dated 28th January 2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Munger in Cr. Appeal No. 133 of 2010 by which the order dated 29.11.2010 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Lakhisarai in G.R.No. 746 A of 2005 arising out of Lakhisarai P. S. Case No. 312 of 2005 under Section 302, 120 (B) I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act has been confirmed and his prayer for bail has been rejected. Heard Mr. A. K. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was declared juvenile vide order dated 23.11.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner 2 filed an application for his release before the Juvenile Justice Board which has been rejected vide order dated 29.11.2010 against which order the petitioner preferred criminal appeal no. 133 of 2010 before the learned Sessions Judge which has also been rejected vide impugned order dated 28.1.2011 on the ground that there is every possibility that after release the petitioner will come again in association with known criminals and may become the member of criminal gang and secondly that the petitioner remains absconding for about four years. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 17th November 2009 and there is nothing on record to suggest that the release of the petitioner will defeat the ends of justice or he will come into contact with association of known criminals. There is no material for this hypothesis on record. Learned A.P.P. for the State could not controvert the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner while opposing the prayer of the petitioner. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the lower 3 court records, it appears that there is no material on record to show that if the petitioner is released, there is reasonable ground for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical, psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. The petitioner has also remained in custody since 17.11.2009. Considering the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the impugned order is not fit to be sustained. It is set aside. The above named petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Juvenile Justice Board, Lakhisarai in connection with Lakhisarai P. S. Case No. 312 of 2005, G. R. No. 746 A of 2005 with following conditions;- (i) One of the bailors must be the father of the petitioner. (ii) The father of the petitioner will take care of the petitioner 4 and he will produce the petitioner in the Court if and when required. In case of absence on two consecutive dates, his bail bonds would be liable to be cancelled. (iii) The petitioner will not indulge himself in similar or in any other offence. (iv) In case of violation of the terms and conditions of bail, the bail bond of the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the learned Juvenile Justice Board and he will be liable to be taken into custody. In the result, this revision application is allowed. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)