IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1026 of 2011 Chotey Mistry @ Chotey Kumar, son of Sri Birju Mistry, under the Guardianship of his mother namely Sundri Devi, resident of village- Kutumpur, Police Station- Rahui, District Nalanda. .. Petitioner. Versus The State Of Bihar …. Opposite Party. ----------- 3. 26.09.2011 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 19.7.2011 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Criminal (Juvenile) Appeal No. 67 of 2011 by which the order dated 8.6.2011 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Biharsharif in JJB Case No. 36 of 2011 arising out of Rahui P. S. Case No. 211 of 2010 under Sections 25(1- AA)(1B)(A)(C), 26/35 Arms Act has been confirmed and the appeal has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been declared a juvenile and his prayer for bail was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 8.6.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Cr. Appeal No. 67 of 2011 which has also been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has 2 also indulged in Rahui (Wena) P. S. Case No. 260/09 and 251 of 2009 of Arms Act and as such the petitioner has criminal antecedent and his father is a notorious criminal. There is possibility that the release of the petitioner is likely to bring him into association of criminals/bad people. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an accused in one occurrence against which two cases have been filed against him one under Indian Penal Code and another under Arms Act. There is nothing on record to show that the release of the petitioner will bring him into association of any known criminals or his release would defeat the ends of justice. The petitioner has been in custody since 30.9.2010 He has further submitted that the report of Probation Officer has also been received in which it has been stated that the accused comes from a very poor family and his neighbour have no complaint against him and there is also no complaint against his character. Learned A.P.P. for the State could not controvert the contention of the petitioner while opposing the prayer. 3 After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of material on record, it appears that there is no material on record to show that if the petitioner is released, he would go into the association of any known criminals. The petitioner has also been in custody since 30.9.2010. 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 Juvenile Justice Board, Biharsharif in connection with J.J.B. Case No. 36 of 2011 arising out of Rahui P.S. Case No. 211 of 2010 with following conditions;- (i) One of the bailors must be the mother of the petitioner. (ii) The mother of the petitioner will take care of the petitioner and she will produce the petitioner in the Court 4 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. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below through fax at the cost of the petitioner. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)