IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.780 of 2011 Bhushan Kumar @ Bhushan Kumar Sinha, minor son of Sri Krishna Prasad, resident of village-Palipar, P.S.-Aungari, District-Nalanda. Versus The State Of Bihar . ----------- 3. 08.08.2011 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 07.06.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jehanabad in Cr. Appeal No.12/2011 by which the order dated 4.03.2011 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Jehanabad in G.R. No.2064 of 2010 arising out of Ghosi P.S. Case No.195 of 2010 under Section 366 (A)/34, 376 and 120B of the I.P.C. has been confirmed and the prayer for bail has been rejected. Heard Mr. Abhay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned counsel for the State. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was declared a juvenile vide order dated 23.11.2010 by the learned Juvenile Justice Board. His prayer for bail has been rejected by the learned Juvenile Justice Board as well as by the learned appellate court on the ground that the petitioner has committed heinous offence and his release will defeat the ends of justice. It is further submitted 2 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. He further submits that he petitioner has been in custody since 18.12.2010. The learned counsel for the State could not controvert the contention of the petitioner while opposing the prayer for bail. 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 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 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, Jehanabad in connection with Ghosi P.S. Case No.195 of 2010, G.R. No.2064 3 of 2010 with 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 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.)