IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1431 of 2011 Dhiraj Sahani @ Dhiraj Kumar son of Ashok Sahani, resident of village- Narkatia, P.S.- Hathauri, District- Muzaffarpur. …. Petitioner. Versus The State Of Bihar … Opposite Party. ----- For the petitioner :Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh,Adv. For the State :Dr. Ravindra Kumar, APP ----------- 2. 24.11.2011 The accused- petitioner has preferred this revision application under Section 53 read with Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 against the order dated 17.10.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Cr. Appeal No. 50 of 2011 by which the order dated 19.8.2011 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Muzaffarpur in Hathauri P. S. Case No. 67 of 2011 under Sections 376(G)/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 aged about 12 years by the Juvenile Justice Board. The petitioner has not been named in the FIR. During investigation only 2 suspicion has been raised against the petitioner for committing a rape of the deceased girl. It has further been submitted that there is no eye witness to the occurrence and the petitioner is own cousin of the co- accused Munchun Sahani and it is absurd to say that a boy of 12 years will commit rape with his elder cousin brother. The prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected only on the ground that it is a case of gang rape and killing of an innocent girl and the release of the petitioner would defeat the ends of justice. It has further been submitted that there is no material on the record to show 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. 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 material on record, it appears that it is an admitted position that the petitioner is a juvenile aged 3 about 12 years. There is no eye witness to the occurrence. There is no material on the record to show that the release of the petitioner 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 above named petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.5000/- (five thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Juvenile Justice Board, Muzaffarpur in connection with Hathauri P. S. Case No. 67 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 4 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.)