IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1230 of 2011 Ghantu @ Satish Kumar under guardianship of his father namely Ramjee Prasad s/o Baleshwar Raut, resident of Mohalla Ram Sagar Talab near Katari P.S. Civil Lines, Distt. Gaya. …. Petitioner. Versus The State Of Bihar … Opp. Party ------ For the petitioner :Mr. Shivendra Prasad, Adv. For the State :Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, APP ----------- 3. 22.11.2011 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 13.9.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd, Gaya in Cr. Appeal No.52 of 2011/ 57 of 2011 (S.J.) by which the order dated 12.7.2011 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Gaya in Civil Lines P. S. Case No. 74 of 2011, Trial No. 1254 of 2011 under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. has been confirmed and the appeal has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been declared a juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board and his prayer for bail has been rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 12.7.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Cr. Appeal No. 52 of 2011 which has been dismissed 2 by the impugned order on the ground that if the petitioner is released, he will go into the association of his friends who have committed the offence and his release would defeat the ends of justice. He has further submitted that there is no material in the case-diary to show that such inference can be drawn. He has further submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is only to have called the deceased and there is no allegation that he has committed the murder of the deceased. Co- accused Hemant Yadav and Balu Kumar have been granted bail by a bench of this Court. Learned A.P.P. for the State could not controvert the contention of the petitioner while opposing the prayer after going through the case-diary. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of impugned order as well as the case-diary, it appears that the contention of 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 3 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 Juvenile Justice Board, Gaya in connection with Civil Lines P. S. Case No. 74 of 2011, Trial No. 1254 of 2011 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 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.)