IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1016 of 2011 Shailendra Kumar son of Shiv Shankar Sharma, resident of village- Kafira Hata, P.S.- Mirganj, District- Gopalganj under guardianship as the father, Shiv Shankar Sharma, resident of Kafira Hata, P.S. Mirganj, District- Gopalganj. .. Petitioner. Versus The State Of Bihar .. Opposite party. ------ For the petitioner :Mr. Ranjan Kumar Srivastava, Adv. For the State :Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, APP ------ 2. 19.08.2011 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 1st July 2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Gopalganj in Criminal Appeal No. 26/2010 by which the order dated 4.6.2010 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gopalganj in J. E. Case No. 26/10 arising out of Mirganj P. S. Case No. 32 of 2010 has been confirmed and the appeal has been dismissed. The prayer for bail of the petitioner has also been rejected. It is submitted that earlier the petitioner had moved this Court against the impugned order in Cr. Revision No. 1165 of 2010 which was dismissed vide order dated 5.8.2010 2 with observation that if the examination of prosecution witnesses is not completed within eight months from the date of receipt of the order, the petitioner shall have liberty to renew his prayer for bail. It is further submitted that more than eight months have passed and the examination of prosecution witnesses has not been completed. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 27.2.2010. The parents of the petitioner will take care of the petitioner. Learned A.P.P. for the State could not controvert the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner while opposing the prayer for bail of the petitioner. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the material on record it appears that it is an admitted position that the petitioner is a juvenile declared by Juvenile Justice Board and his prayer for bail has been rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board as well as by the appellate court on the ground that he has committed a heinous crime and his association is not good. Earlier his prayer for bail was 3 rejected by this Court vide order dated 5.8.2010 with observation that if the trial is not concluded within eight months, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. It appears that even after expiry of eight months the examination of prosecution witnesses has not been completed. The petitioner has been in custody since 27.2.2010. There is no material on record to show that if the petitioner is released, it will defeat the ends of justice. Considering the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the impugned order is not fit to be sustained. It is set aside. The above named petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Gopalganj in connection with J. E. Case No. 26/10, G. R. No. 425 of 2010 arising out of Mirganj P. S. Case No. 32 of 2010 with following conditions;- (i) One of the bailors must be the father of the petitioner. (ii) The father of the petitioner 4 will take care of the petitioner and he will produce the petitioner in the Court if and when required. In case of absence on two consecutive dates, his bail bonds would be liable to be cancelled. (iii) The petitioner will not indulge himself in similar or in any other offence. (iv) In case of violation of the terms and conditions of bail, the bail bond of the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the learned Juvenile Justice Board and he will be liable to be taken into custody. In the result, this revision application is allowed. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)