IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1084 of 2011 1. Khurshid Faruquee S/o Eqbal Faruquee, r/o village- Barkat Nagar, P.S.- Mohania, Distt- Kaimur (Bhabhua) 2. Irshad Khan s/o Rahim Khan, R/o – Badi Bazar P.S. Mohania, Distt- Kaimur (Bhabhua) through Eqbal Faruquee and Rahim Khan their fathers. … Petitioners. Versus The State Of Bihar … Opposite Party. ----------- 2. 02.09.2011 The accused- petitioners have preferred this revision application under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 against the order dated 13.7.2011 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Cr. Appeal (Juvenile) No.78 of 2010 by which the order dated 25.6.2010 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Gaya in Juvenile Trial No. 1033/2009 arising out of Rail P.S. Sasaram (Bhabhua) Case No. 29 of 2009 under Sections 302, 201/34 I.P.C. has been confirmed and the appeal has been dismissed. The prayer for bail of the petitioners has also been rejected. The main contention of learned 2 counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners have been declared juvenile and thereafter, they filed bail petition before the Juvenile Justice Board which was rejected vide order dated 25.6.2010. Thereafter, the petitioners filed Cr. Appeal No. 78 of 2010 which has been dismissed by the impugned order and the prayer for bail has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that the petitioners have committed brutal murder and secondly if they are released, they will go into the association of other criminals and their release would defeat the ends of justice. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that there is no ground for believing that the release of the petitioners will make them into contact of any known criminals. He has further submitted that the petitioners have been in custody since 10th July 2009 and more than half of the maximum sentence to a juvenile has already been expired. The fathers of the petitioners will look after 3 them and produce them in the Court as and when required. Learned A.P.P. for the State assisted by learned counsel for the informant has submitted that the petitioners have committed the heinous offence and their juvenility has been challenged in appeal that is still pending for consideration. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the material on record, it appears that the petitioners have been declared juvenile and their prayer for bail has been rejected only on the ground that they had committed the murder and their release would defeat the ends of justice and would likely to bring them into association of any known criminal but no basis has been mentioned in the impugned order. The petitioners have remained in custody since 10.07.2009 for more than two years. Considering the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the impugned 4 order is not fit to be sustained. It is set aside. The above named petitioners are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Juvenile Justice Board, Gaya in connection with Rail P. S. Sasaram (Bhabhua) Case No. 29 of 2009 with following conditions;- (i) One of the bailors must be the father of the petitioners. (ii) The father of the petitioners will take care of the petitioners and they will produce the petitioners in the Court if and when required. In case of absence on two consecutive dates, their bail bonds would 5 be liable to be cancelled. (iii) The petitioners will not indulge themselves in similar or in any other offence. (iv) In case of violation of the terms and conditions of bail, the bail bond of the petitioners will be liable to be cancelled by the learned Juvenile Justice Board and they will be liable to be taken into custody. In the result, this revision application is allowed. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)