IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.143 of 2011 Md. Sanaulia @ Sonu, minor son of Md. Faiz @ Budho, resident of village-Saidpur, P.S.- Matiharni, District- Begusarai. Versus The State Of Bihar . ----------- 4. 04.08.2011 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 31.05.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Cr. Appeal No.44/2010 by which the order dated 19.04.2010 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Begusarai in Matihani P.S. Case No.86/2009, G.R. No.2477 of 2009 for the offence punishable under Sections 364, 302, 201/34 of the I.P.C. has been confirmed and the prayer for bail has been rejected. Heard Mr. Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prayer of the petitioner for bail has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that the petitioner has committed heinous crime and he is susceptible and vulnerable in falling into bad company of the co-accused 2 and his release would cause miscarriage of justice. It is further submitted that 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. It is further submitted that parents of the petitioner will take care of the petitioner and they will produce the petitioner in the court as and when required. He further submits that the maximum sentence of the juvenile is 3 years and the petitioner has been in custody since 17.08.2009 and more than half sentence has been spent by the petitioner in custody and he is also entitled to get bail under Section 436 Cr.P.C. Learned A.P.P. for the State could not controvert the contention 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. 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 3 of justice. It appears that a report was called for from the Probation Officer and it has been received vide letter no.25 dated 29.03.2011 from which it does not appear that if the petitioner would be released on bail, he will mixe up with any known criminal. However, it further appears from the report that there is enmity between the family of the co- accused Javed and family of the deceased. Moreover, petitioner has been in custody since 17.08.2009. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, in my opinion, the impugned order is not fit to be sustained and the same 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 Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Begusarai in Matihani P.S. Case No.86 of 2009 on the following terms and conditions : (i) One of the bailor will be the father of the petitioner. (ii) Father of the petitioner will produce the petitioner in the court if and when required. (iii) The petitioner will not indulge in 4 similar or in any other 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, Begusarai and he will be taken into custody. In the result, this application is allowed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)