IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1425 of 2011 Ravi Kumar, son of Sri Jugeshwar Prasad, minor under the guardianship of his father Yugeshwar Prasad, son of Sri Ramhari Prasad, resident of Sahdeo Path Patel Nagar, P.S.- Shastri Nagar, District & Town- Patna. … Petitioner. Versus The State Of Bihar .. Opposite Parties. ----------- 2. 24.11.2011 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. 258 of 2011 by which the order dated 3.9.2011 passed by learned Principal Magistrate, 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 under Sections 394 and 411 I.P.C. 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 name of the petitioner has appeared in the statement made before the police by co-accused Aditya Kumar @ Raju Kumar. The prayer for bail of the petitioner has been 2 rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 3.9.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Cr. Appeal No. 258 of 2011 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. The petitioner has been in custody since 22.5.2011 and he has no criminal antecedent. It is further submitted that the father of the petitioner will take care of the petitioner. It is also submitted that co-accused Vaibhav Vishal has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 19.10.2011 passed in Cr. Revision No. 1190 of 2011. 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. 3 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. 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 Principal Magistrate, 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. 4 (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.)