IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1337 of 2011 Diyam Kumar @ Sumit Kumar, son of Sukhdev Chauhan, resident of village-Bishunpur, P.S. Manpur, Distt. Nalanda. …………Petitioner Versus The State Of Bihar ……..Opposite Party ---------------------------------- 2. 25.10.2011 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 28.09.2011 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Cr. Appeal No.82/2011 by which the order dated 18.8.2011 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Nalanda at Biharsharif, in Juvenile Justice Case No. 53 of 2011 has been confirmed and the appeal of the petitioner for grant of bail has been rejected on the ground that the released of the petitioner is likely to bring him into association with criminals and will expose to moral danger which will certainly t defeat the ends of justice. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The main contention of the learned counsel for 2 the petitioner is that the petitioner has been declared a juvenile by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Nalanda at Biharsharif. His prayer for bail has been rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board, vide order dated 18.8.2011. Against the said order petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal No. 82 of 2011 which has been dismissed by the impugned order. His name has appeared in the confessional statement of the co-accused who was arrested. The statement of Ram Bilash Sharma has been recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. who also not named the petitioner. . It is further submitted that similar situation co- accused Damodar Chouchan @ Damodhar Prasad has been granted anticipatory bail by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.8.2011 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 21380 of 2011 and the case of the petitioner is on similar footing. He further submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 3.07.2011. He has further submitted that there is no material on record to show that the release of the petitioner will bring him into association of unknown criminals. Learned counsel for the State could not controvert the contention of the petitioner while opposing the prayer of the petitioner. 3 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 is correct. 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, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif, in J.J.B. Case No. 53 of 2011 arising out of Bihar P.S. Case No. 43 of 2011 on 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 4 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. Ravi/ ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)