IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1081 of 2011 Md. Sakim, son of Md. Salim, a resident of village- Kedli, P.S.- Nawhatta, District- Saharsa. … Petitioner. Versus The State Of Bihar … Opposite Party. ----------- 2. 02.09.2011 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to convert this petition under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. 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 5th May 2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Saharsa in Cr. Appeal No. 5 of 2011 by which the order dated 8.4.2011 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Saharsa in Nauhatta P. S. Case No. 11 of 2010 under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 337, 504/34 I.P.C. corresponding to G. R. No. 206 of 2010 has been confirmed and the appeal has been dismissed. The prayer for bail of the petitioner has also been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been declared juvenile by the learned Juvenile Justice Board and his prayer for bail has been rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board. Thereafter he filed 2 Cr. Appeal No. 5 of 2011 which has been dismissed and the prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that the release of the petitioner will bring him into association of any known criminals and expose him to moral, physical and psychological danger and his release would defeat the ends of justice. But this finding is based on no material. There is no material in the case- diary to show that the release of the petitioner will bring him into association of any known criminals and expose him to moral, physical and psychological danger and his release would defeat the ends of justice. He has further submitted that co-accused has also been granted bail. The petitioner has been in custody since 30.10.2010 Learned A.P.P. for the State could not controvert the contention of the petitioner while opposing the prayer. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of materials on record, it appears that in the impugned order it has been mentioned that the release of the petitioner will bring him into association of 3 any known criminals but there is no such material in the case diary in support of this finding. 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, Saharsa in connection with Nauhatta P. S. Case No. 11 of 2010, corresponding to G. R. Case No. 206 of 2010 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 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 4 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.)