IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.753 of 2011 Vikas Kumar, son of Dinesh Sah, resident of village- Mahisautha, Police Station- Nanpur District- Sitamarhi through Dinesh Sah, son of Late Prabhu Sah, resident of village- Mahisautha, Police Station- Nanpur District- Sitamarhi (father of the petitioner). … Petitioner. Versus The State Of Bihar .. Opp. party ----------- 4. 27.07.2011 The accused-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 23rd April 2011 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Cr. Appeal No. 16 of 2011, by which the Criminal Appeal has been dismissed and the order dated 5.2.2011 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Muzaffarpur has been confirmed and the prayer for bail has been rejected. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State. It appears that the petitioner has been declared juvenile vide order dated 5.2.2011 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Muzaffarpur in Gaighat P. S. Case No. 201 2 of 2010 under Section 395 I.P.C. , 25 (1- b), 26, 35, 27 Arms Act and 3/4 Explosive Substance Act and he was sent to Remand Home. Against this order, the petitioner filed Cr. Appeal No. 16 of 2011 which has been rejected by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur on the ground that looted articles have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner has been in custody since 15.8.2010. There is no material on record to show that there is reasonable ground for believing that the release of the petitioner is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical, psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. Considering the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the impugned order is not fit to be sustained. It is set aside. The abovenamed petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(ten 3 thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Juvenile Justice Board, Muzaffarpur in connection with Gaighat P. S. Case No. 201 of 2010 , G. R. No. 2864 of 2010 with the 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 4 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 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.)