IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.989 of 2011 Rakesh Kumar Mandal @ Rakesh Kumar, son of Pramod Mandal @ Pramod Kumar Singh, resident of village-Dhaniya Garia, P.S.-Rajoun, District-Banka. Versus The State of Bihar . ----------- 3. 12.09.2011 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 22.06.2011 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Banka in Cr. Appeal No.49/2011 by which the order dated 23.05.2011 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Banka in Rajoun P.S. Case No.173/2010, G.R. No.1629/10 for the offence punishable under Section 304B/34 of the I.P.C. has been confirmed and the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail has been rejected. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been declared a juvenile by the learned Juvenile Justice Board. His prayer for bail was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board vide 2 order dated 23.05.2011. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal No.49/11, which has been dismissed by the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner is involved in the offence which is heinous in nature and the age of the deceased is about 18 years. He has further submitted that there is no material on record to show that the release of the petitioner will bring him into association with known criminal and expose him to moral, physical and psychological danger and his release would defeat the ends of justice. It is further submitted that parents of the petitioner will take care of the petitioner and they will produce the petitioner in the court as and when required. He has been in custody since 14.12.2010. Learned counsel for the State could not controvert the contention of the petitioner while opposing the prayer of the petitioner. After hearing the learned counsel for both 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 record to show that the release of the petitioner will bring him into association with known criminal and expose him to moral, physical 3 and psychological danger and his release would defeat the ends of justice. From perusal of the report of Probation Officer, it appears that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, in my opinion, the impugned order is not fit to be sustained. The impugned order is set aside. The petitioner above-named is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Juvenile Justice Board, Banka in Rajoun P.S. Case No.173/2010, G.R. No.1629/10 on the following terms and conditions : (i) One of the bailors will be the father of the petitioner. (ii) Father of the petitioner will produce the petitioner in the court if and when required. (iii) The petitioner will not indulge in similar or in any other offence. (iv) In case of his absence for two consecutive dates or in case of 4 violation of the terms of the bail, his bail bond will be liable to be cancelled by the learned Juvenile Justice Board and he will be taken into custody. In the result, this application is allowed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)