JUDGMENT D.K. Sinha, J. 1. The Petitioner has preferred this Criminal Revision under Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 against the judgment recorded in Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2011 by which the prayer for bail of the Petitioner rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board, Dhanbad in G.R.P.S. Case No. 01 of 2011 was affirmed and his appeal was dismissed for the alleged offence under Sections 366/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned Counsel submitted that the Petitioner is admittedly a juvenile. The fact of the case was that the sister of the informant Vidya Singh (since deceased) had left her home for attending the tuition classes situated at J.C. Mallick Road but when she did not return home till late in the evening, the informant and other witnesses set out in search of her. They gathered that she has not attended her tuition class on that day. In the next morning the cousion of the informant received missed calls from mobile No. 9031301206 and when he made the call back, he heard female voice who was saying Vidya was in her custody and that if he wanted to talk to her then he should call back after ten minutes. The brother of the informant tried to contact Vidya Singh on the given number but it could not be materialized. In the meantime, the informant received information that a dead body of a female aged about 18 years was lying near pole No. 230/28-231/02 on the down railway line at a distance of 1/2 k.m. from Kumardubi railway station and mobile number 9334147997 was written on her right hand. The informant then suspected that it could be the dead body of his sister Vidya. He went there identified the dead body and a case was lodged against unknown. 3. Learned Counsel submitted that the complicity of the Petitioner appeared in the confessional statement of one Manish Kumar Sharma from whose possession several SIM cards and mobile sets were recovered, who stated before the police that the Petitioner Anuj Kumar Dubey was also with him. On search, nothing incriminating material was recovered either from his possession or from his house, as such, there was no legal evidence against him. The case was still under investigation and the mystery of murder could not solved. 4. On search, nothing incriminating material was recovered either from his possession or from his house, as such, there was no legal evidence against him. The case was still under investigation and the mystery of murder could not solved. 4. The prayer for bail of the Petitioner was refused by the Sessions Judge only on the ground that his release would expose him to moral, physical and psychological danger or would defeat the ends of justice but without explaining as to how? 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, admittedly, the Petitioner is a juvenile against whom there is no material except confessional statement of the co-accused, for the present and that no incriminating material was recovered so as to connect him prima facie with the alleged offence, I find his prayer for bail reasonably requires consideration in view of the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. 6. In the result, the Petitioner-Anuj Kumar Dubey is directed to be released on bail on executing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-( Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Dhanbad in connection with G.R.P.S. Case No. 01 of 2011 with the conditions that the parents would be his bailers, who would take care of him and produce him as and when required by the Juvenile Justice Board or any other date suggested by the J.J. Board in each month until conclusion of enquiry. 7. This Criminal Revision is allowed with the above observation. Petition allowed.