IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1115 of 2011 Arun Kumar Mehta @ Arun Kumar son of Siyaram Mehta @ Sitaram Mehta resident of village Simri P.S. Bhaptiyahi, Distt- Supaul. …Petitioner. Versus The State Of Bihar … Opp. Party. ----------- 2. 08.09.2011 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 7th July 2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC V, Supaul in Cr. Appeal No.9 of 2011 by which the order dated 4.3.2011 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Supaul in Bhaptiyahi P. S. Case No. 58 of 2010 (G.R. No. 1090 of 2010) under Sections 364 A I.P.C. has been confirmed and the appeal has been dismissed. The prayer for bail of the petitioner has also been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been declared juvenile aged about less than 15 years by the Juvenile Justice Board and his prayer for bail has been rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Cr. Appeal No. 9 of 2011 which has been dismissed by the impugned order on the ground that if the 2 petitioner is released, he will go into the association of hard criminals. It is further submitted that there is no material on record to show that there is reasonable ground for presuming such fact. There is also no basis to presume that the release of the petitioner will defeat the ends of justice. 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. 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. 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, Supaul in connection with Bhaptiyahi P. S. Case No. 58 of 2010 ( G. R. No. 1090 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.)