IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1361 of 2011 Ranjeet Kumar Rai @ Ranjeet Kumar, son of Kishun Rai @ Kishuni Rai, resident of village-Kalyanpur, P.S.-Bidupur, District- Vaishali. …………..Petitioner Versus The State Of Bihar . ………..Opposite Party 2. 15.11.2011 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 25.10.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Cr. Appeal No.36/2011 by which the order dated 22.09.2011 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Vaishali at Hajipur in complaint case no.1459/2006 under Section 376/511 of the I.P.C. has been confirmed and the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail has been rejected. Heard Mr. Prafull Ranjan Shrivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned A.P.P. 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. His prayer for bail was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 22.09.2011. Against the said order, the petitioner 2 preferred Cr. Appeal No.36/2011, which has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may fall in the association of bad elements and he may repeat the offence. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is no material on the record to draw any such inference as has been given by the learned Sessions Judge. He has further submitted that the petitioner has been in Mandal Kara, Hajipur, which is against the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act. In support of his contention, he has relied upon a decision in the case of Yogendra Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar reported in 2007 (2) PLJR 583. The 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. 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 3 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, Vaishali at Hajipur in complaint case no.1459/2006, Trial No.569 of 2011 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. (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.)