IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1165 of 2011 Mohit Mishra, son of Sri Harischandra Mishra, resident of village- Mohammadpur, Sheoram, P.S.- Sakra, District- Muzaffarpur… Petitioner. Versus The State Of Bihar .. Opposite Party. ----------- 3. 24.11.2011 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 1.6.2011 passed by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Cr. Appeal No. 29 of 2011 by which the order dated 31.3.2011 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board in Sakara P. S. Case No. 222 of 2010 under Sections 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 by the Juvenile Justice Board and his prayer for bail has been rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board on 31.3.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Cr. Appeal No. 29 of 2011 which has been dismissed by the impugned order on the ground that if the petitioner is released, he would go into the association of co-accused and his release would 2 defeat the ends of justice. He has further submitted that there is no material on the record to show that if the petitioner is released, he would go into the association of known criminals which is one of the grounds for denial of bail. He has further submitted that a report was called for from the Probation Officer and has been received vide Letter No. 243/11 dated 18.10.2011 which would go to show that members of family of the petitioner and his father are ready to look after the petitioner. It has further been reported that the co-villagers of the petitioner has stated that the petitioner is of good temperament. 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 the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. 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 3 of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Juvenile Justice Board, Muzaffarpur in connection with Sakara P. S. Case No. 222 of 2010 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 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.)