IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.153 of 2011 Shyam Chaudhary, son of Soman Chaudhary, resident of village- Samda, P.S.-Saurbazar, District- Saharsa. …………..Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar ………….Opposite Party ----------- 4. 20.10.2011 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 9.12.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Saharsa in Cr. Appeal No.30/2010 by which the order dated 19.11.2010 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Saharsa in G.R. Case No.850/2010 arising out of Saur Bazar P.S. Case No.132/2010 under Sections 363, 366, 366 (A)/34 of the I.P.C. has been confirmed and the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail has been rejected. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been declared a juvenile by the learned Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 25.09.2010. His prayer for bail was rejected by the 2 Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 19.11.2010. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal No.30/2010, which has been dismissed by the impugned order on the ground that if the petitioner is released on bail, he will go into the association with known criminal and expose him to moral, physical and psychological danger and his release would defeat the ends of justice. He further submits that there is no material in the case diary to draw such inference. He further submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 11.06.2010. He further submits that the mother of the petitioner will take care of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State could not controvert the contention of the petitioner while opposing the prayer of the petitioner. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, it appears that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. It also appears from the report dated 13.09.2011 at flag ‘A’, which has been received from the Probation Officer through the Juvenile Justice Board, Saharsa that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. There is no 3 material on record to show that the release of the petitioner will bring him into association with known criminal and expose him to moral, physical and psychological danger and his release would defeat the ends of justice. It further appears that the petitioner has been in custody since 11.06.2010. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, in my opinion, the impugned order is not fit to be sustained. The impugned order is set aside. The petitioner above-named is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Juvenile Justice Board, Saharsa in G.R. Case No.850/2010 arising out of Saur Bazar P.S. Case No.132/2010 on the following terms and conditions : (i) One of the bailors will be the mother of the petitioner. (ii) Mother of the petitioner will produce the petitioner in the court if and when required. (iii) The petitioner will not indulge in similar or in any other 4 offence. (iv) In case of his absence for two consecutive dates or in case of violation of the terms of the bail, his bail bond will be liable to be cancelled by the learned Juvenile Justice Board and he will be taken into custody. In the result, this application is allowed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)