IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.546 of 2011 Ajit Kumar @ Guddu, son of Baban Rai, resident of village- Chaturbhuj Chapra, P.S.- Baniyapur, District- Saran. … Petitioner. Versus The State Of Bihar .. Opposite Party. ----------- 4. 06.09.2011 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 7.2.2011 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapara in Cr. Appeal No.54 of 2010 by which the order dated 10.12.2010 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board in Juvenile Trial No. 595 of 2010 arising out of Bhagwan Bazar P. S. Case No. 208 of 2010 under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. has been confirmed and the appeal has been dismissed. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been declared a Juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board. Thereafter, he filed the petition for grant of bail which was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 10.12.2010 passed in Juvenile Trial No. 595 of 2010. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Cr. Appeal No. 54 of 2010, which has been rejected 2 by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge on the ground that the petitioner has committed heinous offence and he is in habit of committing crime. He has further submitted that there is no material on record to show that the petitioner has any criminal antecedent. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has considered the confessional statement of the petitioner. It is further submitted that a report was called for from the Probation Officer which has been sent to this Court which is at Flag ‘A’. In this report it has been reported that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and his members of family are not of criminal nature. 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 material on record, it appears that the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. There is no material on record to show that the petitioner has any criminal antecedent and also there is no reasonable ground for presuming 3 that the release of the petitioner 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. 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, Chapra in connection with Juvenile Trial No. 595 of 2010 arising out of Bhagwan Bazar P. S. Case No. 208 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 liable to be cancelled. (iii) The petitioner will not indulge 4 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.)