IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.791 of 2011 Mukesh Kumar @ Mukesh Sah son of -Nagendra Sah @Naga Sah, Resident of village-Belwa, P.s.-Piprahi, district-Sheohar Versus The State Of Bihar ----------- 2 08.07.2011 Heard Mr. Suresh Prasad Bhakta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The accused petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 1st April, 2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge F.T.C. II, Sheohar, Sitamarhi in Cr. Appeal No. 24 of 2011 dismissing the appeal and confirming the order dated 9.2.2011 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board in G.R No. 195 of 2010 arising out of Piparahi P.S. Case No. 40 of 2010 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 379, 323, 307, 302 and 504 of the I.P.C. in which the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail has been rejected. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was declared a juvenile vide order dated 13.12.2010 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board. There is no specific allegation of any overt act against the petitioner. It is further contended that the co-accused Nagendra Sah and Devendra Sah have been granted bail vide order dated 17.05.2011 by a bench of this Court passed in Cr. Misc. Nos. 27 22 of 2011 there is no material on the record to show that the release of the petitioner will cause any defeat of ends of justice. Learned counsel for the State could not controvert the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner while opposing 2 the prayer of the petitioner. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, it appears that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. There is no reasonable grounds for believing that the release of the petitioner is likely to bring him into the association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat ends of justice. 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 and the petitioner is directed to be released on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10, 000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Juvenile Justice Board in G.R. No. 195 of 2010 (Tr. No. 116 of 2011) with a condition that the mother of the petitioner will be one of the bailors, he will be produced by his mother before the Juvenile Justice Board, if and when so required, the petitioner will not involve in similar or any other offences, failing which the juvenile Justice Board will take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds of the petitioner. With the aforesaid conditions this revision application is allowed. Prakash ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)