IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1065 of 2011 Golu @ Subham Kumar, son of Sudhir Kumar, resident of village/Mohalla-Chaghari Taand, P.S.-Civil Line, District- gaya. 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 17.08.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd, Gaya in Cr. Appeal (Juvenile) No.49/2011 by which the appeal has been rejected and the order dated 12.07.2011 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Gaya in Trial No.1254/11 arising out of Civil Line P.S. Case No.74/11 for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 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 08.04.2011. His prayer for bail was rejected by the 2 Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 12.07.2011. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal (Juvenile) No.49/11, which has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that if the petitioner is released, he may go in contact with the criminals, who are his friend and associate, who also have committed the offence and his release would defeat the ends of justice. He has 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 may go in contact with the criminals. He has further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 31.03.2011 and the other major co- accused have been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 29.07.2011 passed in Cr. Misc. No.19767/11and order dated 15.07.2011 passed in Cr. Misc. No.20635/2011. He has further submitted that 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 3 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. 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.7,000/-with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Juvenile Justice Board, Gaya in Trial No.1254/11 arising out of Civil Line P.S. Case No.74/11 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 4 offence. (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.)