IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1290 of 2011 Lalu Kumar @ Lallu Pandit @ Chhotu Kumar, son of Sri Rajo Pandit, resident of village-Jagarnathpur, P.S.-Sare, District- Nalanda. ……………Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar ………..Opposite Party ----------- 3. 18.10.2011 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 16.09.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nalanda in J.J.B. Cr. Appeal No.84/2011 by which the order dated 9.09.2011 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Nalanda in J.J.B. Case No.46 of 2011 arising out of Laheri P.S. Case No.118 of 2011 under Section 376 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. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been declared a juvenile by the learned Juvenile Justice Board. His prayer for bail was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated09.09.2011. Against the said order, the 2 petitioner preferred J.J.B. Cr. Appeal No.84/2011, which has been dismissed by the impugned order on the ground that release of the petitioner will expose him to moral, physical and psychological danger and also would defeat the ends of justice. He has further submitted that 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 father of the petitioner will take care of the petitioner and he will produce the petitioner in the court as and when required. He has further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 6.06.2011. Learned counsel 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. Considering the facts and circumstances stated 3 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, Nalanda in J.J.B. Case No.46 of 2011 arising out of Laheri P.S. Case No.118 of 2011on the following terms and conditions : (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 4 will be taken into custody. In the result, this application is allowed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)