IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.692 of 2011 Anshu Kumar, son of Rajesh Shankar, resident of Mohalla- Nayee Sarak, Hanuman Gohli, P.S.-Civil Lines, District- Gaya. Versus The State Of Bihar . ----------- 5 28.07.2011 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 04.06.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, IV, Gaya in Cr. Appeal (Juvenile) No.19/2011/32/2011 by which the order dated 08.04.2011 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Gaya in Civil Lines P.S. Case No.405/2010, G.R.No.4017/2010 under Sections 364, 120(B) and 302 of the I.P.C. has been confirmed and the prayer for bail has been rejected. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the F.I.R. was lodged against unknown. During investigation, the name of the petitioner has appeared as one of the accused. He has further submitted that the petitioner has been declared juvenile by the learned Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 4.03.2011. His 2 prayer for bail was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 8.04.2011. Thereafter the petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal (Juvenile) No.19/11, which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 4.06.2011 on the ground that the petitioner has actively participated in the occurrence and offence is heinous in nature and there is every possibility that the petitioner will mix with the association of bad elements of the society and known criminals It is further submitted that there is no material on record to show that there is reasonable ground for believing 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. The petitioner has been in custody since 4.01.2011. 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 3 parties and on perusal of the materials on record as also report of Probation Officer, 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 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 appears from the report dated 21.07.2011 at flag ‘A’ that there is no criminal antecedent against the petitioner. 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, Gaya in Civil Lines P.S. Case No.405/2010, G.R.No.4017/2010 with the following terms and conditions: (i) The petitioner will not indulge in similar or in any other offence. (ii) The parents of the petitioner will take care of the petitioner and father of the petitioner will produce 4 him in the court if and when required. (iii) 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. Let this order be communicated to the trial court through fax at the cost of the petitioner as prayed for. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)