IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.698 of 2011 Bechan Singh @ Anup Kumar Singh, son of Late Deoraj Singh, resident of village-Adai, P.S.-Kargahar, District-Rohtas. 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 30.04.2011 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in Cr. Appeal No.20/2011 by which the order dated 16.03.2011 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Sasaram in Kargahar (Barhari) P.S. Case No.193/2010, G.R. No.3269/10 for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 302/34 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 order dated 16.03.2011. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal No.20/11, which has been dismissed by the impugned 2 order on the ground that the petitioner is directly involved in the occurrence and his release will defeat the ends of justice. It is further submitted that there is no material on record to show that the petitioner has any criminal antecedent and his release would not defeat the ends of justice. 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 and psychological danger and his release would defeat the ends of justice. From perusal of the report submitted by the Probation Officer, it appears that the accused petitioner has no criminal antecedent and his conduct is also good. 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 3 each to the satisfaction of learned Juvenile Justice Board, Sasaram in connection with Kargahar (Barhari OP) P.S. Case No.193/10, G.R. No.3269/10 on the following terms and conditions : (i) One of the bailors must be the Government servant, who will produce the petitioner in the court if and when required. (ii) The petitioner will not indulge in similar or in any other offence. (iii) In case of his absence for two consecutive dates or in case of 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.)