IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1174 of 2011 Raman Kumar @ Aman Kumar @ Chintu, son of Late Dilip Singh, resident of village-Manjhaul, Purwari Tola, P.S.- Cheria Bariyarpur, District- Begusarai. ……….Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar ……….Opposite Party ---------------------------------- 3. 20.12.2011 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 5.08.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Cr. Appeal No.74/2011 by which the order dated 06.07.2011 passed by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Begusarai in Cheria Bariyarpur P.S. Case No.88/2009, G.R. No.1415/2009 under Sections 384, 120B of the I.P.C. and Section 3/5 of Explosive Substance Act has been confirmed and the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail has been rejected. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the 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. His prayer for bail was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board vide 2 order dated 06.07.2011. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred Cr. Appeal No.74/2011, which has been dismissed by the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner is also involved from before in other cases apart from this case lodged against two named and two unknown accused and given bail, there is every possibility of his joining criminal elements and pose potential danger to social safety. There is no material on record to show 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. He has been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of his uncle due to land dispute. A report of the Probation Officer has also been received vide letter no.100 dated 19.11.2011, which shows that the petitioner has been implicated in several cases due to family dispute. He has further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody in this case since 10.06.2009. He has further submitted that the maternal uncle and grand father will take care of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State could not controvert the contention of the petitioner while opposing 3 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.. There is no material on record to show 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.10,000/-with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Juvenile Justice Board, Begusarai in Cheria Bariyarpur P.S. Case No.88/2009, G.R. No.1415/2009 on the following terms and conditions : (i) One of the bailors will be the maternal uncle of the petitioner. (ii) Maternal uncle of the petitioner will produce the petitioner in 4 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.)