IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.803 of 2011 Bhulchul Yadav @ Bhulchul Kumar Albela, son of Kishori Yadav, resident of village-Bara, P.S.-Magadh University, District- Gaya. …………..Petitioner Versus The State Of Bihar ……….Opposite Party ----------- 3. 15.11.2011 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 8.06.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, IV, Gaya in Cr. Appeal (Juvenile) No.23/2011/41/2011 by which the order dated 24.05.2011 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Gaya in Magadh University P.S. Case No.78/2010, Trial No.1246/2011 under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act has been confirmed and the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail has been rejected. 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 dated 24.05.2011. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal (Juvenile) No.23/2011/41/2011, which 2 has been dismissed by the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner has actively participated in the commission of murder and if the petitioner is released, there is every possibility to mix with the bad elements of the society and known criminals. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is no material in the case diary to show that if the petitioner is released on bail, he would go into the contact with any bad elements or any known criminals. The petitioner has been in custody since 8.02.2010. Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, the 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. There is no material on the record to show that if the petitioner is released, he would go into the association of any known criminals and it 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 3 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 Magadh University P.S. Case No.78/2010, Trial No.1246/2011 on 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 will be taken into custody. In the result, this application is allowed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)