IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1005 of 2011 Bharat Ram son of Shri Jagdish Ram under the guardianship of his father, resident of village- Pachgawan, Police Station- Semara, District- West Champaran. …Petitioner Versus The State Of Bihar….. ….. Opposite Party. ----------- 2 17.08.2011 The accused petitioner has preferred this revision application under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of the Children) Act, 2000 against the order dated 25th June, 2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Champaran at Bettiah in Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2011 by which the order dated 06.05.2011 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, West Champaran at Bettiah in Juvenile Trial No. 359 of 2011 (J.J.B. 359/2011) arising out of Sathi P.S. Case No. 95 of 2010 under Sections 366A, 372, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code has been confirmed, the appeal has been dismissed and the prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected. Heard Mr. Bashist Narayan Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been declared a juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board. His prayer for bail has been rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board, West Champaran at Bettiah as well as by the Appellate Court on the ground that if the petitioner is released on 2 bail, there is apprehension of danger of physical, psychological and moral values. It is further submitted that there is no material on the record to show for such apprehension, these findings did not base on any record. He has further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 23.08.2010. The learned counsel for the State could not controvert the learned counsel for the petitioner while opposing the prayer for bail. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, it appears that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. There is no material on the record to show that the release of the petitioner is likely to bring him into association with known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that 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. It is set aside. The petitioner is directed to be released on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Juvenile Justice Board, West Champaran at Bettiah in Juvenile Trial No. 359 of 2011 (J.J.B. 359 of 2011) arising out of Sathi P.S. Case No. 95 of 2010 with the following conditions: (i) The father of the petitioner will be one of the bailors. 3 (ii) The petitioner will not indulge in similar or in any other offence. (iii) The father of the petitioner will produce the petitioner before the learned trial Court if and when required. In case of violation of the terms of bail, the bail bond of the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the learned Juvenile Justice Board and the petitioner will be taken into custody. In the result, this revision application is allowed. Md. Ibrarul ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)