JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The accused petitioner was arrested by the police in F.I.R. No.329/2001 registered at Police Station Brahmampuri, Jaipur, for offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and was sent to jail. After due enquiry, the petitioner was found and declared juvenile. 3. An application under section 12 of the Act for release of petitioner on bail was moved on his behalf by his mother Smt. Khurshida in her capacity as natural guardian of the petitioner. The learned Juvenile Justice Court Jaipur vide order dated 7.1.2002 dismissed the bail application on the ground that there are reasons to believe that petitioner's release may bring him into the association with unknown criminals. The order rejecting bail was challenged by the petitioner through his mother before the learned Sessions Judge by tiling an appeal under section 52 of the Act. During the course of hearing of appeal, the learned Sessions judge directed the prosecution to submit a report as to whether Smt. Khurshida. mother and natural guardian of the petitioner is involved in any crime. The prosecution submitted report stating that more than one case were pending against her, involving offence under the N.D.P.S. Act. After hearing counsel for the parties, the learned Session Judge vide order dated 18.1.2002 dismissed the petitioner's appeal, observing that there are sufficient reasons to believe that if the benefits of bail are extended to the petitioner, it is likely that he may come in contact with known and unknown criminals, inasmuch as at the time of arrest, the petitioner was found to be in possession of a mobile phone and a scooter and his mother was also involved in such like offences. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the orders of the two courts below, the present revision petition has been tiled by the petitioner though his maternal grand father Rasheed @ Abdul Rasheed, supported by his affidavit. In his affidavit Rasheed has deposed that his daughter Smt. Khurshida is involved in a criminal case arising out of F.I.R. No.27/2002 and she is presently in custody in Central Jail. Jaipur. Learned counsel, appearing, for the petitioner has Informed that the case pending against Smt. Khurshida is under the N.D.P.S. Act. 5. Mr. Munindra Singh, counsel for the petitioner has contended that both the courts below have committed serious error of law in declining release of juvenile. Jaipur. Learned counsel, appearing, for the petitioner has Informed that the case pending against Smt. Khurshida is under the N.D.P.S. Act. 5. Mr. Munindra Singh, counsel for the petitioner has contended that both the courts below have committed serious error of law in declining release of juvenile. He submitted that mother of the juvenile is not a known criminal and one cannot be said to be a criminal till it is proved beyond doubt in a court of law that the person concerned has committed alleged offence and therefore, till she is convicted, she is only a suspect of the crime. According to him, there was nothing on the record to believe that the release of the petitioner is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. 6. Sub Section (1) of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 deals with bail of juvenile. It provides that when any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety but he shall not be released if there appear reasonable ground for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. 7. A bare reading of the above provisions makes it abundantly clear that juvenile accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence can be released on bail with or without surety but he cannot be released on bail if there are reasonable ground to believe that his release is likely to bring him to association with any known criminal. Having consulted various dictionaries, it can well be said that the dictionary meaning of word 'criminal' is, one who committed crime and the word 'known' is defined as recognized. 8. There cannot be any dispute that normally a juvenile offender should not be kept in custody. Having consulted various dictionaries, it can well be said that the dictionary meaning of word 'criminal' is, one who committed crime and the word 'known' is defined as recognized. 8. There cannot be any dispute that normally a juvenile offender should not be kept in custody. But at the same time, if it appears that there are sufficient grounds for believing that release of a juvenile is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, it would be in his own interest not to release him on bail. A juvenile should not. be allowed any occasion to meet with known criminal. The aim and object of Section 12 of the Act is to protect the juvenile from becoming a hardened criminal. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though attractive, but not worthy of acceptance so as to conclude that Smt. Khurshida. mother of juvenile is not a known criminal. The Legislature has not used the word 'known convict', by a large the criminal is one who commits a crime. Therefore, it can safely be said that Smt. Khurshida comes within the ambit of words "known criminal", against whom one case. involving offence under the N.D.P.S. Act is pending trial and another case involving same offence is under investigation with the police as admitted by the counsel for the petitioner. In this view of the matter, both the. courts below, considering the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, were correct in refusing release of the petitioner. The orders impugned in this revision petition, therefore, calls for no interference. 9. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******