IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.921 of 2011 Dilip Kumar @ Dilip Ram son of Bindeshwar Ram, resident of village- Kamalpur, P.S.- Lalganj, District- Vaishali, through his father ad litem. … Petitioner. Versus The State Of Bihar … Opp. Party. ------ For the petitioner :Mr. Navjot Yeshu, Adv. For the State :Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, APP. ----------- 3. 24.11.2011 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 23.6.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, II, Hajipur in Cr. Appeal No. 11 of 2011 by which the order dated 9.3.2011 passed by learned Principal Member, Juvenile Justice Board, Hajipur in JJB Trial No. 358 of 2009, G.R. No.1192 of 2009 arising out of Lalganj P. S. Case No. 74 of 2009 under Sections 302/392/34 I.P.C. has been confirmed and the appeal has been dismissed. The prayer for bail of the petitioner has also been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been declared a juvenile. Earlier his prayer for bail was rejected by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 7.12.2009 passed in Cr. Revision No. 1884 2 of 2009 directing the Trial Court to expedite the trial. The trial of the petitioner is still pending. A report has been called for from the Principal Member, Juvenile Justice Board and has been received by Letter No. 38 dated 15.10.2011 which would go to show that efforts have been taken to conclude the trial within a period of six months. It has further been submitted that criminal appeal has been rejected only on the ground that the prayer for bail of the petitioner has already been rejected by this Court and no infirmity has been found in the order passed by the learned Principal Member, Juvenile Justice Board rejecting the prayer for bail of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 1.5.2009 and he has remained in custody for more that two and a half years whereas the maximum period of sentence of a juvenile is three years. Learned A.P.P. for the State could not controvert the contention of the petitioner while opposing the prayer. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of material on record, it appears that the contention of 3 learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. Considering the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the impugned order is not fit to be sustained. It is set aside. The above named petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Principal Member- Juvenile Justice Board, Hajipur in JJB Trial No. 358 of 2009, G.R. No. 1192 of 2009 arising out of Lalganj P. S. Case No. 74 of 2009 with following conditions;- (i) One of the bailors must be the father of the petitioner. (ii) The father of the petitioner will take care of the petitioner and he will produce the petitioner in the Court if and when required. In case of absence on two consecutive dates, his bail bonds would be liable to be cancelled. (iii) The petitioner will not indulge himself in similar or in any other offence. (iv) In case of violation of the terms and conditions of bail, the bail bond of the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled 4 by the learned Juvenile Justice Board and he will be liable to be taken into custody. In the result, this revision application is allowed. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)