IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1456 of 2011 Ranjeet Kumar, son of Bhikari Singh, resident of village- Chibilli, P.S.-Beur, District- Patna. ………..Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar …….Opposite Party ---------------------------------- 2. 29.11.2011 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 24.10.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Patna in Cr. Appeal No.226/2011 by which the order dated 3.08.2011 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Patna in J.J.B. Case No.187/11 arising out of Beur P.S. Case No.26/2011 under Sections 376, 504 and 506/34 of the I.P.C. has been confirmed and the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail has been dismissed. 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 holding his age about 12 years on the date of occurrence, whereas, the age of the informant is about 40 2 years. He has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has been in jail custody since 7.06.2011, which is against the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act. No juvenile should be kept in prison with adult prisoners. In support of his contention, he has relied upon a decision in case of Yogendra Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar reported in 2007 (2) PLJR 583. He has further submitted that the appeal has been dismissed on the ground that there is specific allegation of rape against the petitioner and his release would defeat the ends of justice and bring him into association with criminals and expose him to moral, physical and psychological danger. He has 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. 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 3 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 the 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. 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, Patna in J.J.B. Case No.187/11 arising out of Beur P.S. Case No.26/2011 on the following terms and conditions : (i) One of the bailors 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 4 in 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 and he will be taken into custody. In the result, this application is allowed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)