IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.147 of 2011 Pappu Kumar Paswan, son of Wakil Paswan, resident of village- Mahkhar, P.S.-Bakhtiarpur, District- Saharsa at present residing at village-Goshpur, P.S.-Salakhua, District- Saharsa. Versus The State of Bihar ----------- 4. 06.09.2011 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 7.12.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Saharsa in Cr. Appeal No.29/2010 by which the order dated 30.10.2010 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Saharsa in connection with Salkhua P.S. Case No.68/10, G.R.No.661/2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366A/34 of the I.P.C. has been confirmed and the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail has been rejected. Heard Mr. Alok Kumar Alok, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was declared a juvenile by the learned Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 01.10.2010. His prayer for bail was rejected by the Juvenile 2 Justice Board vide order dated 30.10.2010. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal No.29/2010, which has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that the release of the petitioner is likely to 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 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. It is further submitted that the accused is in custody since 6.05.2010. He has further submitted that from perusal of the report submitted by the Probation Officer vide letter no.69 dated 4.04.2011, it appears that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. 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 parties and on perusal of the materials on record, it appears that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner 3 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, Saharsa in connection with Salkhua P.S. Case No.68/10, G.R.No.661/2010 on the following terms and conditions : (i) One of the bailors will be the maternal grand father of the petitioner. (ii) Maternal grand father of the petitioner will produce the petitioner in the court if and when required. (iii) The petitioner will not indulge in 4 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.)