IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1315 of 2011 Amit Kumar, son of Ambika Yadav, resident of Maranpur, P.S. Civil Lines, Distt. Gaya. ……petitioner Versus The State Of Bihar ……….opposite party ---------------------------------- 2. 21.10.2011 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 17.09.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-III, Gaya in Cr. Appeal No.55/2011 by which the order dated 26.08.2011 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Gaya in Civil Lines P.S. Case No. 74 of 2011 under Section 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board. His prayer for bail was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 26.08.2011. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal No.55/11, which has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that if petitioner is 2 released on bail he may go in contact with the criminals who are his friends and associate, who have committed the offence and his release would defeat the ends of justice. The petitioner is in custody since 21.7.2011. He has further submitted that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and during investigation his name has appeared only in the confessional statement of the accused but no overt act has been alleged against him. He further submits that father of the petitioner will take care of the petitioner. He further submitted that the co- accused Bablu Kumar @ Raju Kumar has also been granted bail. Learned counsel for the State could not controvert the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner while opposing his prayer. 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 each to the satisfaction of learned Juvenile Justice Board, Gaya in Civil Lines P.S. Case No.74 of 2011 , Trial No.1302/11 on the following terms and conditions:- 3 (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. (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. Ravi/- ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)