IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.817 of 2011 Chandan Kumar @ Chandan Patel, son of Shri Shatrughna Prasad, resident of village Lodipur P.S. Telhara, District- Nalanda. Versus The State Of Bihar ----------- 3 19.09.2011 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 14.06.2011 passed by learned District & Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Cr. Appeal No. 62 of 2011 by which the order dated 19.05.2011 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Nalanda at Biharsharif in J.J.B. Case No. 34 of 2011 arising out of Hilsa P. S. Case No. 278 of 2010, G.R. No. 947 of 2010 under Sections 363, 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code has been confirmed and the appeal has been dismissed. The prayer for bail of the petitioner has also been rejected. Heard Mr. Sachidanand Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, learned counsel for the State. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was declared a Juvenile by order dated 29.04.2011 and his prayer for bail has been rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Cr. Appeal No. 62 of 2011 which has been dismissed by the impugned order on the ground that if the petitioner is released on bail then it is likely to bring him into the association of bad 2 people. He has further submitted that there is no material on the record to show that there is ground for presuming that the release of the petitioner would bring him in the association of any known criminals. He has further submitted that the report of the Probationary Officer has been received and there is no criminal antecedent against the petitioner. The father of the petitioner will look after the petitioner. Learned A.P.P. for the State could not controvert the contention of the petitioner while opposing the prayer. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order as well as on the report submitted by the Probationary Officer, Nalanda, Biharsharif dated 16.05.2011, it appears that the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. There is no material for presuming that if the petitioner is released he would come in the contact of any known criminal. The petitioner has been in custody since 02.09.2010. 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, Nalanda at Biharsharif in connection with J.J.B. No. 34 of 2011, arising out of Hilsa P.S. Case No. 278 of 2010 on the following conditions;- 3 (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. Md. Ibrarul ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)