IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1071 of 2011 Vivekanand Bharti @ Vicky @ Viky Kumar son of Dr. Dayanand Bharti resident of Mohalla- Ward No. 26, N. P. Supaul, P.S. Supaul, District- Supaul. …. Petitioner. Versus The State Of Bihar … Opp. Party. ----------- 2. 02.09.2011 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 19.07.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Supaul in Cr. Appeal No.04/2011(s) by which the order dated 19.01.2011 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Supaul in Supaul P.S. Case No.113/2010, G.R. No.445/10 for the offence punishable under Sections 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 was declared a juvenile by the learned Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 29.10.2010. His prayer for bail was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 2 19.01.2011. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal No.04/11 (S), which has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that the release of the petitioner is not in the interest of justice since he will fall into association of the known criminals and expose him to moral danger and his release would affect the ends of justice. 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 further submitted that the petitioner is a student of class X of William High School, Supaul. He has been in custody since 14.05.2010. 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 3 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. 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/-(ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Juvenile Justice Board, Supaul in connection with Supaul P.S. Case No.113/10, G.R.No.445/10 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. 4 (iv) 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. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Court below through Fax at the cost of the petitioner. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)