IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.691 of 2011 Amit Kumar @ Amit Kumar Sah son of Sri Mahesh Sah resident of village Jandaha P.S. Jandaha Dist-Vaishali. Versus The State Of Bihar ----------- 4 29.07.2011 The accused petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 20.05.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Vaishali in Cr. Appeal No. 12 of 2011 by which the order dated 01.04.2011 passed by the Principal Member-cum-Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Juvenile Justice Board in G.R. No. 2941 of 2010 Trial No. 557 of 2010 arising out of Mahnaj P.S. Case No. 94 of 2010 under Section 302/34 IPC has been confirmed and the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail has been rejected. Heard Mr Vishwnath Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kumar the learned counsel for the State. It is submitted that the F.I.R was lodged against the unknown. The name of the petitioner has come to light in a confessional statement of the co-accused. The petitioner has been declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board. The prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 01.04.2011 thereafter the petitioner filed Cr. Appeal No. 12 of 2011 by which the appeal and prayer of the petitioner have been rejected on the ground that if the petitioner is released he will come in the contact with any known criminal. He has further submitted that a report was called for from the 2 Probation Officer. He has submitted his report dated 04.01.2011 which is at flag ‘A’. It also suggests that the petitioner has neither criminal antecedent nor he has criminal character and there is also no material to show that if the petitioner is released there would be possibility to mix the petitioner with the bad element. Learned counsel for the State could not controvert the contention of the petitioner while opposing his prayer. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order as well as the material on record, it appears that the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. The report has been submitted by the Probation Officer which is at flag ‘A’. From the report it appears that there is no criminal antecedent against the petitioner and there is no material to show that the release of the petitioner is likely to bring him into association with known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or 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. The impugned order is set aside. The petitioner is directed to be released on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10, 000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Juvenile Justice Board in G.R. No. 2941 of 2010 T.R. No. 557 of 2010 with the following conditions:- 3 (i) That the father of the petitioner will be one of the bailors. (ii) The petitioner will not indulge in similar or in any other offence. (iii) The father of the petitioner will produce the petitioner before the learned trial Court if an when required. In case of violation of the terms of bail, the bail bond of the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the learned Juvenile Justice Board and the petitioner will be taken into custody. In the result, this revision application is allowed. Prakash (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)