IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.815 of 2011 1. Chhotu Kumar 2. Arvind Kumar (Both sons of Ram Bachchan Rai, resident of village- Srirampur Tola, P.S.-Bihta, District- Patna) ………….Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar ….Opposite Party ----------- 3. 18.10.2011 The accused petitioners have preferred this revision application under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 against the order dated 30.05.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Patna in Cr. Appeal No.130/2011 by which the order dated 7.05.2011 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Gaighat, Patna City in J.J.B. Case No.75 of 2011 arising out of Bihta P.S. Case No.376/2010 under Sections 341, 325, 302, 498A/34 of the I.P.C. has been confirmed and the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail has been rejected. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D.Mehta, the learned counsel for the State. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners have been declared 2 juvenile by the learned Juvenile Justice Board. Their prayer for bail was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 7.05.2011. Against the said order, they preferred Cr. Appeal No.130/11, which has been dismissed by the impugned order on the ground that the release of the petitioners would expose them to moral, physical and psychological danger and the same would also defeat the ends of justice. He has further submitted that there is no material in the case diary to support this contention. It is further submitted that maternal uncle (Mama) namely Suresh Rai of the petitioners will take care of the petitioners and he will produce the petitioners in the court as and when required. He has further submitted that co-accused Ram Bachchan Rai has been granted bail by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.06.2011 passed in Cr. Misc. No.16281 of 2011. Learned counsel for the State could not controvert the contention of the petitioner while opposing their prayer. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the materials on record including the carbon copy of the case diary, it appears that the 3 contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is correct. There is no material on record to show that the release of the petitioners will bring them into association with known criminal and expose them to moral, physical and psychological danger and their 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 petitioners above-named are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Juvenile Justice Board, Gaighat, Patna City in J.J.B. Case No.75 of 2011 arising out of Bihta P.S. Case No.376/2010 on the following terms and conditions : (i) One of the bailors will be the maternal uncle (Mama) of the petitioners, who will produce the petitioners in the court if and when required. (ii) The petitioners will not indulge in similar or in any other 4 offence. (iii) In case of their absence for two consecutive dates or in case of violation of the terms of the bail, their bail bond will be liable to be cancelled by the learned Juvenile Justice Board and they will be taken into custody. In the result, this application is allowed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)