IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1147 of 2011 Rajesh Kumar @ Amit Kumar @ Amit Kumar Sinha son of Shambhu Prasad, resident of village Garhauni, P.S. Sirdala District Nawada under Guardianship of his father Shambhu Prasad. … Petitioner. Versus The State Of Bihar … Opp. Party. ----------- 3. 30.09.2011 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 8.8.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, IV, Gaya in Cr. Appeal (Juvenile) No. 25 of 2011 by which the order dated 15.7.2011 passed by learned Juvenile Justice Board, Gaya in Trial No. 1291 of 2011 arising out of Barachatti P. S. Case No. 51 of 2011 under Sections 20 of NDPS Act has been confirmed and the appeal has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been declared a juvenile and his prayer for bail has been rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Cr. Appeal (Juvenile) No. 25 of 2011 which has been dismissed by the impugned order on the ground that if the petitioner is released, there is 2 every possibility to mix the petitioner with known criminals. He has further submitted that there is no material on record to show that if the petitioner is released, he would go into the association of known criminals or his release would defeat the ends of justice. He also submitted that a report of Probation Officer dated 28.9.2011 has been received which does not show that the petitioner has any criminal antecedent. The petitioner has been in custody since 17.2.2011 and his father will take care of him. 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 the release of the petitioner would bring him into association of known criminals or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger. Considering the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the impugned order is not fit to be sustained. It is set 3 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, Gaya in connection with Trial No. 1291 of 2011 arising out of Barachatti P. S. Case No. 51 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 will be liable to be taken into custody. In the result, this revision application is allowed. Kanchan (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.) 4