IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1226 of 2011 1. Chhottu Kumar @ Sunil Kumar 2. Gautam Kumar Both sons of Kishori Yadav, under the guardian ship of their mother namely Siya Devi wife of Kishori Yadav, resident of Mohalla Ramdhanpur, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Gaya. … Petitioners. Versus The State Of Bihar …Opposite Party. ----------- 3. 17.11.2011 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 20.8.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd, Gaya in Cr. Appeal No. 50 of 2011/52 of 2011(S.J.) by which the order dated 12.7.2011 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Gaya in Kotwali P. S. Case No. 65 of 2011 under Section 302 and 379 I.P.C. rejecting the prayer for bail has been confirmed and the appeal has been rejected. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that both the petitioners have been declared juvenile by the learned Juvenile Justice Board and their prayer for bail was rejected by the learned Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 12.7.2011. Thereafter, they filed Cr. Appeal No. 50 of 2 2011/52 of 2011 which has been dismissed vide impugned order on the ground that if the petitioners are released on bail, they will again go into the association of known criminals and their release would defeat the ends of justice, but there is no material in the case diary or any material for forming such an opinion. He has further submitted that other co-accused have been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 15.10.2011 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 28406 of 2011 and order dated 22.7.2011 passed in Cr. Misc. No.21732 of 2011 and the case of the petitioner is on better footing. Learned A.P.P. for the State could not controvert the contention of the petitioners while opposing their prayer. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of carbon copy of the case-diary, it appears that there is no material on record to show that if the petitioners are released, they would go into the association of known criminals. Considering the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the impugned order is not fit to be sustained. It is set 3 aside. The above named petitioners are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Juvenile Justice Board, Gaya in Kotwali P. S. Case No. 65 of 2011, Trial No. 1245 of 2011 with following conditions;- (i) One of the bailors must be the mother of the petitioners. (ii) The mother of the petitioners will take care of the petitioners and she will produce the petitioners in the Court if and when required. In case of absence on two consecutive dates, their bail bonds would be liable to be cancelled. (iii) The petitioners will not indulge themselves in similar or in any other offence. (iv) In case of violation of the terms and conditions of bail, the bail bond of the petitioners will be liable to be cancelled by the learned Juvenile Justice Board and they will be liable to be taken into custody. In the result, this revision application is allowed. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)