JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.K. Roopanwal, J.—This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.10.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 11/Special Judge (Gangster Act), Varanasi, in Criminal Appeal No. 122 of 2007, whereby the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Ram Nagar, Varanasi, dated 27.9.2007 in Case Crime No. 535 of 2007, under Section 3(1) U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, Police Station Saidpur, District Ghazipur was endored and the appeal was dismissed. 2. It appears from the record that the revisionist was facing trial in Crime No. 535 of 2007, under Section 3(1) U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act. In this case he moved an application for bail before the Juvenile Justice Board, Ram Nagar, Varanasi. That application was rejected. Against that order he preferred an appeal, which was numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 122 of 2007. This appeal was dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated 25.10.2007 passed by the aforesaid learned Additional Sessions Judge on the ground that in case the appellant is allowed bail, there is every likelihood that he will fall in the company of known criminals of Case Crime No. 330 of 2005, under Sections 302, 504, 506, 120-B, I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Saidpur, District Ghazipur. 3. I have heard Mr. Shambhavi Nandan, learned Counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 4. Mr. Nandan argued that the appeal was dismissed on wrong interpretation of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). According to him, for finding a case for rejection of bail on the ground that the release is likely to bring the delinquent in association with known criminals it must be established that the juvenile will regularly join the company of known criminals. The present instance of only one criminal case cannot fulfill this condition i.e. the association with known criminals. 5. For appreciating the argument of Mr. Nandan it would be necessary to see as to what the word “association” used in Section 12 of the Act conveys. 6. The word “association” has been defined in Concise Oxford Dictionary (Sixth Edition) as an act of associating; organized body of persons for a joint purpose; fellowship, companionship; mental connection between related ideas. 7. Nandan it would be necessary to see as to what the word “association” used in Section 12 of the Act conveys. 6. The word “association” has been defined in Concise Oxford Dictionary (Sixth Edition) as an act of associating; organized body of persons for a joint purpose; fellowship, companionship; mental connection between related ideas. 7. The above meaning of the word “association” has also been adopted in Legal Glossary, Government of India, 1988 Edition. 8. Thus to prove “association” it must be shown that the persons so joined have a common purpose and that there is a mental connection between their related ideas. In such view of the matter if a person has joined a known criminal or criminals only in a single case, by that it cannot be inferred that this single act would bring that person in association with known criminal(s). There can be an apprehension of his associating with known criminal(s) only when there is sufficient evidence to show that he has been joining them regularly so as to give an impression that he would continue to join them in future also. 9. Thus, I am of the view that the single instance of a child delinquent joining the company of some known criminal or criminals would not be sufficient to satisfy the definition of the word “association” used in Section 12 of the Act. If his past conduct had been of such a nature, which indicates his continuous association with known criminal or criminals then there would be justification for inferring that there would be likelihood that his release may bring him in association with known criminal(s). 10. I, therefore, accord my agreement with the argument of Mr. Nandan that only a single instance of joining the revisionist with other accused cannot be sufficient to hold that his release shall bring him in association with known criminals. In such view of the matter, it appears that the appeal was wrongly decided and the orders passed by the appellate authority as well as the Juvenile Justice Board are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the revision is liable to be allowed. 11. The Revision is allowed and the impugned orders dated 25.10.2007 and 27.9.2007 are set aside. In such view of the matter, it appears that the appeal was wrongly decided and the orders passed by the appellate authority as well as the Juvenile Justice Board are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the revision is liable to be allowed. 11. The Revision is allowed and the impugned orders dated 25.10.2007 and 27.9.2007 are set aside. It is directed that the revisionist shall be released on bail in the Case Crime No. 535 of 2007, under Section 3(1) U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, Police Station Saidpur, District Ghazipur, on his executing two sureties each of Rs. Forty thousand to the satisfaction of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Ram Nagar, Varanasi. One of such sureties will be the father of the child delinquent and if he is not alive then his near relative. ————