IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.683 of 2011 Sonu Kumar @ Kallu, son of Dinesh Chaudhary, resident of Mohalla-Noon Gola Tabar, P.S. & Town-Hajipur, District- Vaishali. Versus The State Of Bihar . ----------- 4. 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 11.05.2011 passed in Cr. Appeal No.14/2011 by the learned Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur by which appeal has been dismissed and his prayer for bail has also been rejected. Heard learned counsels for both the parties. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Hajipur Town P.S. Case No.265/10 was instituted under Section 395 of the I.P.C. against unknown. During investigation, the name of the petitioner appeared in the confessional statement of co-accused. Nothing has been recovered from his possession. He has further submitted that the petitioner has been declared juvenile by the learned Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 7.04.2011. His prayer for bail was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal No.14/11 2 before the learned Sessions Judge, which has been dismissed by the impugned order on the ground that if the petitioner is released on bail, there is likelihood of coming him into contact with criminals, which would be dangerous for the juvenile (petitioner). He has further submitted that vide order dated 20.06.2011, a report was called for from the Probation Officer through the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board regarding the antecedent and character of the petitioner. The Probation Officer has submitted his report dated 8.04.2011 (flag ‘A’) from which, it appears that prior to seven months, the petitioner was seen with ante-social elements. The petitioner was asked by the guardian not to go in the association of those persons, and then the petitioner has left the company of the accused persons. As such, the petitioner has been named by those elements, who have complicity in the present occurrence. It has also been reported that there is no chance of going the petitioner into the association of those elements. He has further submitted that the other co-accused persons have also been released on bail by the learned Sessions Court. Learned A.P.P. for the State could not controvert the contention of the petitioner. 3 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, Hajipur in Hajipur Town P.S. Case No.265 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 4 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.)