IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.297 of 2011 Akhilesh Kumar, son of Suresh Singh, resident of village- Bakhtiyarpur, P.S.-Haspura, District- Aurangabad. Versus The State Of Bihar . ----------- 2. 29.08.2011 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 27.05.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Cr. Appeal No.15/2010 by which the appeal has been rejected and the order dated 20.05.2011 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Aurangabad in G.R. No.84/10, Trial No.404/10 arising out of Haspura P.S. Case No.8/10 for the offence punishable under Sections 384, 386 and 411/34 of the I.P.C. has been confirmed and the prayer of the petitioner 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 petitioner is that the petitioner has been declared a juvenile by the learned Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 21.04.2010. His prayer for bail was rejected by the 2 Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 20.05.2010. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal No.15/2010, which has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that there is every possibility, if the petitioner is released on bail, he may again come into association with criminal elements, which may expose him to moral, physical and psychological danger. He has further submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. He has further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 14.02.2010 and the father of the petitioner will take care of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State could not controvert the contention of the petitioner while opposing the prayer of the petitioner. 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 petitioner is correct. There is no material on record to show that the release of the petitioner will bring him into association with known criminal and expose him to moral, physical and psychological danger and his release would defeat the ends of justice. A report has been called for from the 3 Probation Officer through Juvenile Justice Board, Aurangabad vide order dated 10.03.2011 and it has been received through Desptach No.43 dated 23.04.2011(flag ‘A’) from which it does not appear that the petitioner has any criminal antecedent. 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 petitioner above-named is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Juvenile Justice Board, Aurangabad in G.R. No.84/10, Trial No.404/10 arising out of Haspura P.S. Case No.8/10 on the following terms and conditions : (i) One of the bailors will be the father of the petitioner. (ii) Father of the petitioner will produce the petitioner in the court if and when required. (iii) The petitioner will not indulge in similar or in any other offence. 4 (iv) In case of his absence for two consecutive dates or in case of violation of the terms of the bail, his bail bond will be liable to be cancelled by the learned Juvenile Justice Board and he will be taken into custody. In the result, this application is allowed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)