IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1228 of 2011 Chandan Kumar, son of Sri Devendra Prasad, resident of village- Chainpura, P.S. Tekari, District- Gaya, through his father and guardianship of Sri Devendra Prasad s/o Sri Ram Khelawan Mahto r/o vill- Chainpura, P.S. Tekari, District- Gaya. … Petitioner. Versus The State Of Bihar .. Opp. Party. ------- For the petitioner :Mr. Shailesh Kumar, Adv. For the State :Mrs Anita Kumari Singh, APP ----------- 3. 22.11.2011 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 18.8.2011 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Cr. Appeal (Juvenile) Case No. 55 of 2011/ 2 of 2011 by which the order dated 29.7.2011 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Gaya in Trial No. 1278 of 2011 arising out of Tekari P. S. Case No. 57 of 2011 under Sections 302, 201/34 I.P.C. has been confirmed and the appeal has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been declared a juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board and his prayer for bail has been rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 2 29.7.2011 passed in Trial No. 1278 of 2011. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Cr. Appeal (Juvenile) Case No. 55 of 2011 which has been dismissed by the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner has actively participated in the murder of Mantu Kumar and his four accompanies, namely, Ram Tosh Kumar, Banti Kumar, Rakesh Kumar and Amit Kumar are still absconding and if the petitioner is released, he would go into the association of those co- accused which will be dangerous for his safety as well as it will defeat the ends of justice. He has further submitted that there is no material in the case-diary to show that if the petitioner is released he will go into the association of known criminals or his release would defeat the ends of justice. Learned A.P.P. for the State could not controvert the contention of the petitioner while opposing the prayer after going through the copy of the case diary. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of material on record, it appears that there is no basis in the case diary to support the ground for refusal of the bail by the learned Additional 3 Sessions Judge. 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 Juvenile Justice Board, Gaya in connection with T.R. No. 1278 of 2011 arising out of Tekari P. S. Case No. 57 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 the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the learned Juvenile Justice Board and he 4 will be liable to be taken into custody. In the result, this revision application is allowed. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)