IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.444 of 2011 Sanichar Sharma @ Sanchi Sharma @ Sonu Kumar, son of Late Bipin Sharma, S/O Mostt. Deoki Devi, resident of village-Chirauri, P.S.-Chausa, District- Madhepura. Versus The State Of Bihar ----------- 4. 06.07.2011 The accused petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 5.02.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Madhepura in Cr. Appeal No.6/2011 by which the prayer for bail has been rejected. Heard Mr. Shekhar Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State. It is submitted that the petitioner is an accused in connection with Chausa P.S. Case No.70/2010 for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 25.11.2010. His prayer for bail was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 4.1.2011 passed in G.R.Case No.1043/10 (J) arising out of Chousa P.S.Case No.70/2010. Against the said order, the petitioner was filed Criminal Appeal No.6/2011, which has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Madhepura on the ground that offence committed by the 2 petitioner is heinous and there is direct allegation of rape against him. It has been further submitted that a report was called for from the concerned Probation Officer through Juvenile Justice Board, Madhepura in the aforesaid matter. The concerned Probation Officer, Madhepura has submitted his report dated 27.12.2010 from which it appears that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is an ordinary boy and he committed the offence in the influence of his Bahnoi. He has further submitted that petitioner is in custody since 10.07.2010. It is further submitted that mother of the petitioner will take care of the petitioner and she will produce him in the court as and when required. Learned A.P.P. for the State could not controvert the contention of the petitioner while opposing his prayer for bail 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 of the petitioner is correct. Considering the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the impugned orders are not fit to be sustained and accordingly impugned order dated 5.02.2011 passed in Criminal Appeal No.6/2011 as well as order dated 4.1.2011 passed in G.R.Case No.1043/2010 (J) are set 3 aside. The petitioner above-named is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Juvenile Justice Board, Madhepura in G.R.No.1043/2010 arising out of Chausa P.S.Case No.70/2010 with condition that the petitioner will not indulge in similar or in any other offence and with further condition that one of the bailors must be the mother of the petitioner, who will produce the petitioner in the court as and when required. 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, Madhepura. In the result, this revision application is allowed. V.K.Pandey (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)