JUDGMENT 1. - The present revision petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who is a juvenile, for releasing him from the custody from the case arising out of the F.I.R. No. 60/2011 registered at the Police Station, Napasar, district Bikaner for the offences under Sections 302 and 201, I.P.C. 2. The petitioner, being a juvenile, has been sent in detention to the Juvenile Home is connection with the above F.I.R. His application for release filed by his father has been dismissed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Board, Bikaner by the order dated 19.9.2011 and the appeal filed against that order has been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner vide order dated 19.10.2011. 3. This Court has directed the learned Public Prosecutor to call for the report of the Probation Officer, which has been received. Nothing adverse has been mentioned in the Probation Officer's report, as per which if the petitioner is released from the juvenile Home then he would come in the contact of hardened criminals. The report also reveals that the petitioner is a student and there are four members is the family, i.e. father, mother and two brothers, who are there to look after the petitioner. One of the brother of the petitioner is employed in the Rajasthan Police. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the incident in this case has taken palce on 22.5.2011 and the F.I.R. was filed on 31.5.2011 and in the F.I.R there was a allegation against three persons viz., the petitioner, Kalu Ram and Purkha Ram regarding having been last-seen with the deceased and, there was also an allegation of extra-judicial. confession by all these persons, but the police has filed Challan only against the petitioner. He also submits that no incriminating recovery has been made from the petitioner. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments advanced at the bar. 7. Looking to the facts and circumstances, particularly the report of the Probation Officer wherein nothing has been said about the possibility of petitioner's coming into the contact of hardened offenders after having been released on bail. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments advanced at the bar. 7. Looking to the facts and circumstances, particularly the report of the Probation Officer wherein nothing has been said about the possibility of petitioner's coming into the contact of hardened offenders after having been released on bail. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the findings of the learned Principal Magistrate of the Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate Court while refusing the release of the petitioner to the guardianship of his father cannot be said to be justified. 8. Accordingly, the revision petitioned succeeds. The impugned orders dated 19.10.2011 and 29.9.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner and the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bikaner, respectively, are quashed. The petitioner is directed to be released to the guardianship of his father Prabhu Dan S/o Kishan Dan Charan on his father furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- along with one surety in the like amount and on such terms which may be decided by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bikaner.Revision petition allowed. *******