IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1167 of 2011 1. Raj Kumar Paswan, son of Sri Tunni Paswan 2. Mukesh Paswan, son of Asheshwar Paswan. (Both residents of village-Arnia, P.S.- Jandaha, District- Vaishali). ……….Petitioners Versus The State Of Bihar. ………Opposite Party. ----------- 3. 23.09.2011 The accused petitioners have preferred this revision application under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 against the order dated 18.08.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Vaishali at Hajipur in Cr. Appeal No.31/2011 by which the orders dated 28.07.2011 and 14.07.2011 respectively passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Hajipur in G.R. Case No.2977/08, Trial No.24/11 arising out of Jandaha P.S. Case No.126/08 for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 302, 201/34 of the I.P.C. have been confirmed and the prayer of the petitioners for grant of bail has been rejected. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners were declared juvenile by the learned Juvenile Justice Board. Their prayer for bail 2 were rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 14.07.2011 and 28.07.2011. Against the said orders, the petitioners preferred Cr. Appeal No.31/11, which has been dismissed by the impugned order on the ground that both the petitioners have earlier absconded from the Remand Home and later on the accused Raj Kumar Paswan was arrested on 30.09.2008 and Mukesh Pawan had surrendered on 11.11.2008 and since then they have been in custody. He further submits that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent. Learned counsel for the State could not controvert the contention of the petitioners while opposing the prayer of the petitioners. 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 petitioners is correct. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, in my opinion, the impugned order is not fit to be sustained. The impugned order is set aside. The petitioners above-named are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-with two sureties of the 3 like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Juvenile Justice Board, Hajipur in G.R. Case No.2977/08, Trial No.24/11 arising out of Jandaha P.S. Case No.126/08 on the following terms and conditions : (i) One of the bailors will be the father of the petitioners. (ii) Father of the petitioners will produce the petitioners in the court if and when required. (iii) The petitioners will not indulge in similar or in any other offence. (iv) In case of their absence for two consecutive dates or in case of violation of the terms of the bail, their bail bonds will be liable to be cancelled by the learned Juvenile Justice Board and they will be taken into custody. In the result, this application is allowed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)