IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.821 of 2011 Bishnu Kumar son of Sri Gulab Sah, resident of Mohalla- Shivpur Tikiya Toli, Police Station- Sultanganj, Distt.- Patna.( under the guardian ship of mother). … Petitioner. Versus The State Of Bihar … Opposite party. ----------- 3. 17.08.2011 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 21.6.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Patna in Cr. Appeal No. 129 of 2011 by which the order dated 7.5.2011 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Patna in Juvenile Justice Board Case No. 88 of 2011 arising out of Sultanganj P. S. Case No.5 of 2011 under Sections 20/22 of NDPS Act, has been confirmed and the appeal has been dismissed. The prayer for bail of the petitioner has also been rejected. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A. P. P. for the State. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board and his prayer for bail has been rejected by 2 the Juvenile Justice Board on the ground that 76 Puria of Smacks have been found in possession of the petitioner and secondly if the petitioner is released he will go into the association of known criminals. Thereafter the petitioner filed Cr. Appeal No. 129 of 2011. The appeal has been dismissed and the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail has also been rejected on the ground that if the petitioner is released, he will expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and there is no material on record to show that if the petitioner is released, he will go into association of any known criminals. Learned A. P. P. for the State could not controvert the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of carbon copy of the case diary, it appears that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. There is no material to show that there is reasonable ground for believing that the release of the petitioner is 3 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. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, 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 Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Patna in connection with Juvenile Justice Board Case No. 88 of 2011 arising out of Sultanganj P. S. Case No. 5 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. 4 (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 Principal Magistrate, 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.)