IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.658 of 2011 Indradeo Kumar Choudhary @ Naro @ Nardeo Choudhary @ Satendra Choudhary resident of village-Suturkhana, Polie Station Mufassil District-Munger. Versus The State Of Bihar ----------- 3 21.07.2011 The accused petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 1st of march 2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, in Cr. Appeal No. 24 of 2011 by which the appeal has been dismissed and the order passed by the learned Juvenile justice Board has been confirmed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P for the State and learned counsel for the informant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an accused of G.R. Case No. 1979A of 2010 arising out of Muffasil P.S. Case No. 212(II) of 2010 under Sections 302, 376, 511, 448, 341, 323, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that there is no specific allegation of overt act against the petitioner. The petitioner has been declared a juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board. The prayer for bail has been rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board thereafter he filed Cr. Appeal No. 24 of 2011 which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 01.03.2011 on the ground that in case the petitioner is released, he may come with association of known criminals which will destroy the character and career of the petitioner. He has further submitted that there is no material on the record to show that if the petitioner is released he will come 2 into the association with known criminals and there is no material on the record to show that the release of the petitioner will defeat the ends of justice. Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant could not controvert the contention of the petitioner while opposing the prayer for bail. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record as well as carbon copy of the case diary, 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 is likely to bring him into association with known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that 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. It is set aside. The petitioner is directed to be released on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 7,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Munger in G.R. No. 1979A of 2010 with the following conditions : (i) The father of the petitioner will be one of the bailors. (ii) The petitioner will not indulge in similar or in any other offence. (iii) The father of the petitioner will produce the 3 petitioner before the learned trial Court if and when required. In case of violation of the terms of bail, the bail bond of the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the learned Juvenile Justice Board and the petitioner will be taken into custody. In the result, this revision application is allowed. Prakash (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)