IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1447 of 2011 Aditya Raj Anand @ Raju Kumar Aditya, son of Jitendra Prasad @ Jitendra Kumar, resident of village- Mohalla- Sri Ram Path Patel Nagar, Police- Station- Shashtri- Nagar, District- Patna under the legal guardianship of his father Jitenera Prasad @ Jitendra Kumar. … Petitioner. Versus The State Of Bihar …OPP. Party. ----------- 2. 28.11.2011 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 21.10.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Patna in Cr. Appeal No. 261 of 2011 by which the order dated 3.09.2011 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Patna in J. J. B. Case No. 183 of 2011 arising out of Shastri Nagar P. S. Case No. 141 of 2011 has been confirmed and the appeal has been dismissed. The prayer for bail of the petitioner has also been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been declared a juvenile. The prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 03.09.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Cr. Appeal No. 261 of 2011 2 which has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that the release of the petitioner will bring him into association of criminals and expose him to moral and psychological danger. It is also submitted that there is no material on record to show that if the petitioner is released, he would go into association of known criminals. He has further submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. The petitioner has been in custody since 22.5.2011. It is further submitted that the father of the petitioner will take care of the petitioner. It also submitted that co- accused Baibhav Vishal has also been granted bail by this Court. Learned A.P.P. for the State could not controvert the contention of the petitioner while opposing his prayer. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of material on record, it appears that the contention of 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 of any known criminals or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. 3 The petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he has been in custody since 22.5.2011. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, 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 Juvenile Justice Board, Patna in connection with J. J. B. Case No. 183 of 2011 arising out of Shastri Nagar P. S. Case No. 141 of 2011 with following conditions;- (i) One of the bailors must be the father of the petitioner. (ii) The father of the petitioner 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 4 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.)