ORDER Heard Mr. Bijay Bhushan Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Satyavrat Verma, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Ajay Kumar learned counsel for the informant, who has suo motu appeared. 2. This application is for grant of bail to the petitioners under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). Earlier such prayer was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board, Samastipur in Tr. No. 474 of 2012, G.R. No. 1852 of 2011 pertaining to Samastipur Muffasil P.S. Case No. 512 of 2011. The appeal was also dismissed on 07.02.2012 by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Samastipur in Cr. Appeal No. 06 of 2012. 3. The petitioners among others are accused in Samastipur Mufassil P.S. Case No. 512 of 2011 dated 25.08.2011 registered for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 448, 341, 323, 302, 504 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the informant of the present case is an accused in a case which was filed prior to the present case being Samastipur Mufassil P.S. Case No. 512 of 2011 in which also a person had died in which the father, brother and other relatives of the informant as well as the deceased of the present case among others were named accused. It is submitted that in fact the deceased in the present case was himself a history sheeter and the dispute between the parties arose on the issue of payment of rangdari tax to the deceased. It is submitted that the deceased in the other case was brutally assaulted and when he was taken to the hospital, he was pronounced dead and this enraged the persons who attacked and killed the deceased in the present case. It is submitted that the reason for implication of the petitioners has been explained in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the present application which go to show that the petitioners have been made accused because of past and admitted enmity between the parties. Learned counsel has submitted that both the petitioners have been declared to be a juvenile upon proper enquiry by the Juvenile Justice Board in which the informant had tried to raise a controversy with regard to the date of birth which was ultimately settled in favour of the petitioners after calling for the school records. Learned counsel has submitted that both the petitioners have been declared to be a juvenile upon proper enquiry by the Juvenile Justice Board in which the informant had tried to raise a controversy with regard to the date of birth which was ultimately settled in favour of the petitioners after calling for the school records. Learned counsel has assailed the order rejecting bail on the ground that firstly, the same has been erroneously done only on the presumption that the petitioners will be involved with known criminals and that it was against the ends of justice to release him on bail. For the said proposition, learned counsel has relied on the following decisions in the case of :- (i) Mantu Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2010 (1) PLJR 916 , the relevant being at paragraph 6. (ii) Rahul Mishra Vs. State of M.P., reported in 2001 Cri. L. J. 214, the relevant being at paragraph-5. (iii) Sandeep Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in 2007 Cri. L.J. 1942, the relevant being at paragraphs- 4 and 5. (iv) Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2003 Cri. L.J. 2284, the relevant being at paragraph-4. (v) Ranjeet Kumar Rai Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2012 (1) PLJR 703 , the relevant being at paragraph-4. (vi) Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2009 (3) BLJ [JHC-10]. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on the basis of the abovementioned judgments, has stated that there has to be some material before the court to show as to why the release would defeat the ends of justice and would not mean guess work of the court for the same should be substantiated by some evidence on record. Further, ‘accused’ is a person against whom only an allegation has been made whereas ‘criminal’ is one who has committed a crime and the language of Section 12 (1) the Act clearly refers that bail may be refused if it appears that release of the juvenile in conflict with law would bring him in association with any ‘known criminal’ and in the present case even if it is taken to be true that he was involved in the alleged crime alongwith his other friends then also they are only ‘accused’ and not ‘known criminal’. 6. 6. Learned A.P.P. for the State has referred to the portion in the impugned appellate order to show that the petitioners had criminal antecedent and that went to show that they would be in the society of known criminals which was a good reason to refuse bail as per the provisions of Section 12 (1) of the Act itself. 7. Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that the petitioners are not juvenile and that this court may direct for getting them medically examined so that the provisions of the beneficiary legislation are not misused by unscrupulous elements with criminal tendency. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners, by way of reply to the contention of the learned A.P.P., has submitted that the said observation in the appellate order is based on the supervision note of the case which, according to him, is neither part of the police papers nor can be relied upon since it is only an internal communication with regard to the case. For this proposition he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Manilal Keshri Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2006 (4) PLJR 32 . As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the informant is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out to paragraph 20 of the application where it is stated that on the point of juvenility, the informant being aggrieved had moved in appeal and the same was dismissed after which the informant has not moved and thus the matter, as of now, had attained finality. Learned counsel for the petitioners has concluded his argument by submitting that the petitioners are in custody since 23.09.2011 and that in any view of the matter, are entitled to the privilege of bail under the Act for which the parents/close relatives were ready to give undertaking so as to ensure that the petitioners do not come in bad company and live a disciplined life. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the materials on record, this Court is inclined to agree with the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the materials on record, this Court is inclined to agree with the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners may have been involved in an incident which cannot be said to be lawful, but as per the provisions of the Act, are entitled to get an opportunity to come into the mainstream of society since the spirit of the Act is not to punish them but to facilitate their rehabilitation. Further, nothing substantial has come on record so as to establish that refusal of bail would either not be in the interest of juvenile themselves or would lead them to getting into company of known criminals or would not be in the ends of justice. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, this application stands allowed. 11. Let both the petitioners be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Samastipur in connection with Tr. No. 474 of 2012, G.R. No. 1852 of 2011 pertaining to Samastipur Mufassil P.S. Case No. 512 of 2011. One of the bailors in the case of petitioner no. 1 should be the father whereas in the case of petitioner no. 2 it will be the paternal uncle. Both the petitioners as well as their bailors shall also execute a bond of good behaviour and that they shall not indulge in any criminal activity before the court concerned. The bailors shall also indicate that they would ensure that the petitioners do not get into bad company. Any violation of the terms and conditions of the bail shall lead to automatic cancellation of the bail. The petitioners shall physically present themselves before the Probation Officer, Samastipur at least once a month and also as and when directed by him. The Probation Officer, Samastipur shall maintain strict supervision over the petitioners.