IN THE HIGH COUR T OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.686 of 2011 Dharmendra Kumar @ Dharmendra Ravidas son of Indradeo Ravidas, resident of village-Pindari, Tola Korsar, P.S. Amas, District-Gaya. Versus The State Of Bihar. ----------- 3 21.07.2011 This revision application has been filed under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice( Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 against the order dated 2nd April 2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, IV Gaya in Cr. Appeal No. 08 of 2011/14 of 2011 (Juvenile) by which the appeal has been rejected confirming the order passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board dated 04.02.2011 in G.R. No. 685 of 2010, Trial No. 1231 of 2011 arising out of Amas P.S. Case No. 96 of 2010 for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and the prayer for bail has been rejected. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Indu Bala Pandey, learned counsel for the State. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the prayer of the petitioner has been rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the ground that the offence is heinous in nature and there is possibility to mix the petitioner with bad elements of the society if he is released on bail. He further submit that there is no material on record to show that if the petitioner is released he will come in the contact with any known criminal. He has further submitted that a report was called for from the Probation Officer, Gaya. He has submitted his report vide dispatch No. 96 dated 25th June, 2011 at flag ‘A’. It also does not suggest that the petitioner has any criminal 2 antecedent or there is any possibility to mix the petitioner with the bad elements. The learned counsel for the State could not controvert the contention of the petitioner while opposing his prayer. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order as well as the material on the record, it appears that the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. The report has been submitted in pursuance to order dated 13.06.2011 passed by this Court, report has been submitted by the Probation Officer Gaya which is at flag ‘A’. From the report it appears that there is no criminal antecedent against the petitioner and there is no material to show that the release of the petitioner is likely to bring him into association with known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or 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 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 the learned Juvenile Justice Board in G.R. No. 685 of 2010, Tr. No. 1231 of 2011 arising out of Amas P.S. Case No. 96 of 2010 on the following conditions:- (i) The father of the petitioner will be one of the bailors. (ii) The petitioner will not indulge in similar or in any other offence. (iii) The father of the petitioner will produce the 3 petitioner before the learned trial Court if and when required. In case of violation of the terms of bail, the bail bond of the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the learned Juvenile Justice Board and the petitioner will be taken into custody. In the result, this revision application is allowed. Prakash (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)