IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1522 of 2011 Prabhat Kumar Jha, son of Kanhaiya Jha, resident of village- Karian, P.S.- Rosera, District- Samastipur. ………………Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Pinki Devi, wife of Sushil Paswan, resident of village- Karian, Tola- Jogia, P.S.- Rosera, District- Samastipur. …………..Opposite Parties ---------------------------------- 2. 15.12.2011 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 17.11.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, II, Samastipur in Cr. Appeal No.53/2011 by which the order dated 23.09.2011 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Samastipur in Rosera P.S. Case No.109/2011 has been confirmed and the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail has been dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 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 2 order dated 23.09.2011. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal No.53/2011, which has been dismissed by the impugned order on the ground that if the petitioner is released on bail, he would fall in the company of known criminals and his release would defeat the ends of justice. He has further submitted that there is no material on the record to draw such inference. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that father of the petitioner has instituted a case against the husband of the informant and as retaliation; the present case has been filed. He has further submitted that the age of the victim lady is about 35 years and also a mother of two children, while the age of the petitioner is less than 18 years. 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. Considering the facts and circumstances stated 3 above, in my opinion, the impugned order is not fit to be sustained. The impugned order is set aside. The petitioner 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, Samastipur in Rosera P.S. Case No.109/2011 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. 4 In the result, this application is allowed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)