IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1242 of 2011 Amarkant Kumar @ Amar Kant Chauhan son of Jagjivan Chauhan resident of village Hargama Bishunpur Beldari Thana Manpur District- Nalanda. … Petitioner. Versus The State Of Bihar … Opposite Party. ----------- 3. 16.11.2011 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 6.9.2011 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Cr. Appeal No. 68 of 2011 by which the order dated 30.5.2011 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Nalanda in J.J.B. Case No. 32 of 2011 arising out of Bihar P. S. Case No. 43 of 2011 under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. rejecting the prayer of the petitioner has been confirmed and the appeal has been dismissed. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been declared a juvenile and his prayer for bail has been rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal No. 68 of 2011 which has been dismissed by the impugned order on the ground that the mobile of the deceased 2 has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and he has also made the confessional statement in paragraph 109 of the case-diary that he has committed the murder of the deceased along with three other accused by pressing the neck of the deceased. He has further contended that Anup Kumar Verma has pressed the neck of the deceased causing his death. The name of the petitioner has appeared in this case during investigation. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent. The father of the petitioner will look after him. Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, 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 case-diary as also the report of Probation Officer, it appears that there is no material on record to show that there is reasonable ground for believing that the release of the petitioner is 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. 3 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 of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Juvenile Justice Board, Nalanda at Biharsharif in connection with J.J.B. Case No. 32 of 2011 arising out of Bihar P. S. Case No. 43 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. (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 4 will be liable to be taken into custody. In the result, this revision application is allowed. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)