IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.337 of 2011 Kundan Kumar Yadav . Versus The State Of Bihar . ----------- 3. 06.07.2011 The accused petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 3.12.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Saharsa in Cr. Appeal No.27/2010 by which the prayer of the petitioner to release him in Saharsa Sadar P.S.Case No.206/10 for the offences punishable under Sections 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code has been rejected on the ground that the release of the petitioner will bring him into association with known criminal and expose him to moral, physical and psychological torture and his release would defeat the ends of justice. Heard Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, learned A.P.P for the State. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 25.09.10. His prayer for bail was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 23.10.2010. Against the said order, the petitioner was filed Criminal Appeal No.27/10, which has been rejected by the impugned order as aforesaid. It has been further submitted that the 2 report was called for from the concerned Probation Officer through Juvenile Justice Board, Saharsa with respect to the petitioner in connection with G.R.Case No.822 of 2010 arising out of Sadar P.S.Case No.206 of 2010. The Chief Probation Officer, Saharsa has submitted the report vide letter no.109 dated 13.05.2011 (flag ‘A’) from which it appears that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and his character is good. There is no 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. He has further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 10.07.2010. It is further submitted that father of the petitioner will take care of the petitioner. Learned A.P.P. 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 of the petitioner is correct. It also appears from the report of the Chief Probation Officer at flag ‘A’ that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and his character is good. 3 Considering the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the impugned order is not fit to be sustained and accordingly impugned orders dated 3.12.2010 passed in Criminal Appeal No.27/2010 as well as order dated 23.10.10 passed in G.R. Case No.822/10 are set aside. The petitioner abovenamed is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.7,000/- (seven thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board, Saharsa in G.R.No.822/2010 arising out of Sadar P.S.Case No.206/2010 with condition that the petitioner will not indulge in similar or in any other offence and with further condition that one of the bailors must be the father of the petitioner, who will produce the petitioner in the court if and when required. In case of violation of the terms of the bail, his bail bond is liable to be cancelled by the learned Juvenile Justice Court, Saharsa. In the result, this petition is allowed. V.K.Pandey (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)