IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.887 of 2011 Sanjeet Kumar @ Chhotu, son of Sanjay Chaudhary @ Sanjay Kumar Chaudhary, resident of Mohalla-Balughat, P.S.- Town Muzaffarpur, District- Muzaffarpur. Versus The State Of Bihar . ----------- 2. 26.07.2011 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 15.03.2011 passed in Cr. Appeal No.15/2011 by the learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur by which appeal has been dismissed and his prayer for bail has been rejected. Heard Mr. S.D. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Anil Kumar Singh-I, learned counsel for the State. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was declared juvenile by the learned Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 5.02.2011. His prayer for bail was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 24.02.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal No.15/11 before the learned Sessions Judge, which has been dismissed by the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner is an accused under Section 376 of the I.P.C. and offence is very heinous in nature. He has further submitted that after investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted for the 2 offence punishable under Sections 376/511 of the I.P.C. Moreover, there is no material on the 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. 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 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 as 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.7,000/-with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Juvenile Justice Board in Muzaffarpur 3 Town P.S. Case No.475 of 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 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. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)