IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.894 of 2011 Amit Kumar, Son of Sailesh Kumar @ Sanjeet Kumar, Resident of Village-Nandan Bigha, Police Station-Hulasganj, District-Jehanabad, At present Renter in the House of Dipak Kumar (Informant) Mohalla-Ram Chandrapur (Shivpuri), Police Station-Laheri, District-Nalanda, under the guardianship of father of the petitioner. …..Petitioner. Versus The State of Bihar …..Opposite Party. ---------------------------------- 03/ 25.08.2011 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 28th of June, 2011, passed by learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Criminal (Juvenile) Appeal No. 61 of 2011, by which the order dated 10.05.2011 passed by the court of Juvenile Justice Board, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif in Juvenile Case No. 22 of 2011 has been confirmed and the appeal has been dismissed and the prayer for bail was rejected. Heard Shri Devendra Prasad Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Hirday Prasad Singh and learned Counsel for the State. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board, thereafter, his prayer for bail was rejected vide its order dated 2 10.05.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Criminal (Juvenile) Appeal No. 61 of 2011, which has been dismissed on the ground that there is possibility that the release of juvenile is likely to bring him into association of criminals and he has further submitted that the accused/petitioner has no criminal antecedent. The report was called for from the Probation Officer vide Letter No. 38 dated 25.04.2011. There is no material to show that the release of the petitioner will defeat the ends of justice and there is no material to show that if the petitioner is released, he will go into association of unknown criminals. Learned Counsel for the State has submitted that father of the petitioner will take care of the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the parties and perusal of the impugned order as well as the report submitted by the Probation Officer, it appears that the contention of the petitioner is correct. There is no material on the record to show that there is reasonable ground for believing that the release of the petitioner is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or exposed him to moral, physical, psychological danger or his 3 release will 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 above named petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Juvenile Justice Board Case No. 22 of 2011, arising out of Laheri P.S. Case No. 16 of 2011 with the following conditions: (i) the father of the petitioner will be one of the bailors, he will produce the petitioner before the Juvenile Justice Board if and when required, in case of absence on two consecutive dates his bail bond liable to be cancelled. (ii) the petitioner will not indulge in similar or any other offence, in case of violation of the terms his bail bond liable to be cancelled by Juvenile Justice Board and he shall be taken into custody. In the result, this revision application is allowed. kksinha/- (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)