IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1258 of 2011 Sanoj Mehta @ Sanoj Kr. Mehta, S/O Jitan Mehta, Resident of Village- Pandu Tola Rajwardih, P.S. Tendawa, District- Aurangabad. ………….Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar ……..Opposite Party ---------------------------------- 4. 15.12.2011 The certified copy of the order dated 25.08.2011 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board has been filed. Let it be kept on record. 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 14.09.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Cr. Appeal No.28/2011 by which the order dated 25.08.2011 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Aurangabad in Tandwa P.S. Case No.29/2011, G.R. No.1117/2011, T.R.No.562/2011 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 2 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 25.08.2011. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal No.28/11, which has been dismissed by the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner is the main assailant. Allegation against the petitioner is that he alongwith Jitian & Manoj have caught hold of the deceased and Manoj Mehta assaulted the deceased on his head causing his death. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent. He has further submitted that in similarly situated co-accused Jitan Mehta has already been granted bail by a Bench of this Court vide Cr. Misc. No.29247/2011. 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, Aurangabad in connection with Tandwa P.S. Case No.29/2011, G.R. No.1117/2011, T.R.No.562/2011 on the following terms and conditions : (i) One of the bailors will be the mother of the petitioner. (ii) Mother 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 4 will be taken into custody. In the result, this application is allowed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)