IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.870 of 2011 Ujjawal Kumar @ Ujjawal Uthap @ Uptal, minor son of Sri Ram Lalit Prasad Singh, resident of village-Gamharia, P.S.-Majorganj, District- Sitamarhi, presently residing in Officers’ Flat, Police Line, Begusarai, P.S.- Begusarai Town, District- Begusarai. Versus The State Of Bihar . ----------- 2. 21.07.2011 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 24.05.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Cr. Appeal No.41/2011 by which the appeal has been rejected and the order dated 15.03.2011 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Begusarai in Begusarai Town P.S. Case No.352/2010 under Sections 379 and 411 of the I.P.C. has been confirmed and the prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected. Heard Mr. Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. I.B. Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been declared juvenile by the learned Juvenile Justice Board. He has been involved in case one after another due to enmity. The father of the petitioner is a police personnel and due to rivalry with his colleague, the 2 petitioner has been implicated in the present case. He further submits that Begusarai Town P.S. Case No.352/2010 has been instituted against unknown and only on the basis of the alleged confessional statement of the petitioner before the police; he has been implicated in this case. No recovery of the motorcycle has been made. As such, Section 411 I.P.C. has wrongly been mentioned. After investigation, the charge-sheet has been submitted under Section 379 of the I.P.C. It has further contended that the petitioner has been granted bail by this Court in another case. 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. Learned A.P.P. 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 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 3 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 and the same 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, Begusarai in Begusarai Town P.S. Case No.352 of 2010, G.R. No.2650/2010 with condition that the petitioner will not indulge in similar or in any other offence; a cash surety of Rs.5,000/- will be deposited and further condition that one of the bailors must be the mother of the petitioner, who will produce the petitioner in the court if and when required and 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, Begusarai and the cash amount will be forfeited and he will be taken into custody. In the result, this application is allowed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)