JUDGMENT A.K. ROOPANWAL, J. 1. This revision has been filed against the orders dated 1.5.2008 and 22.5.2008 passed by the authorities below. Vide order dated 1.5.2008 the request for bail made by the revisionist in Case Crime No. 412 of 2007, under sections 302, 120-B, 307, I.P.C. and section 4/25. Arms Act, Police Station Chaubeypur, District Varanasi, was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board and when the appeal was preferred against the rejection order, that appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Varanasi, vide order dated 22-5-2008. 2. It is pertinent to mention here that both the authorities below were not inclined to grant bail as there was every likelihood that the revisionist may fall in the association of known criminals. I have heard Mr. J.J. Munir, learned Counsel for the revisionist learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 3. It has been argued by Mr. Munir that there was no evidence on the record to indicate that the revisionist ever joined the company of any criminal what to say of a "known criminal" and therefore, the findings recorded by the authorities below cannot be allowed to subsist. To the above, it has been argued by learned AGA that in the case of the present nature where one person was murdered and two persons were injured and the revisionist was apprehended at the spot, there could be no occasion for the authorities below to grant bail, therefore, the orders passed by the authorities below are well in accordance with the law. 4. For appreciating the arguments of the parties, I would like to reproduce the provision of bail incorporated under section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It runs as under: "(12). 4. For appreciating the arguments of the parties, I would like to reproduce the provision of bail incorporated under section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It runs as under: "(12). Bail of Juvenile.-(1) When any person accused of a bailable or nonbailable 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 or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution or fit person) but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds 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 of that his release would defeat the ends of justice. (2) When such person having been arrested is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer incharge of the police station, such officer shall cause• him to be kept only in an observation home in the prescribed manner until he can be brought before a Board. (3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board it shall, instead of committing him to person, make an order sending him, to an observation home or a place of safety for such a period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding him as may be specified in the order." 5. A look at the above definition would show that only in the aforesaid three contingencies the bail can be refused to a juvenile. One of such contingencies was chosen by the authorities below for rejecting the bail and that contingency was the danger of association with known criminals, which could expose him to moral, physical and psychological danger. 6. To judge the above contingency it would be proper to see to whether there was any evidence on the record to show that the revisionist had any association with any criminal. 6. To judge the above contingency it would be proper to see to whether there was any evidence on the record to show that the revisionist had any association with any criminal. The answer to the question would come in the negative as neither is any evidence on the record nor from the judgments nor from the arguments advanced before me it has been shown that the revisionist had any association in the past or has any association in the present with any known criminal. That being the position, there could be no occasion for the authorities below to opine that in case the revisionist is granted bail he would fall in association of a known criminal. Here, I would like to mention that heinousness of the offence cannot be a ground for refusing bail to a juvenile. As stated earlier the bail of a juvenile can be refused only under any of the contingencies mentioned in section 12 of the aforesaid Act. 7. Thus, in view of the above, I do feel that the orders passed by the authorities below are wrong and are liable to be quashed. 8. The revision is allowed and the impugned orders dated' 1.5.2008 and 22.5.2008 are set aside. It is directed that the revisionist shall be released on bail in case Crime No. 412 of 2007, under sections 302, 120-B, 307, LPC. and section 4/25, Arms Act, Police Station Chaubeypur, District Varanasi, on his executing two sureties each of Rs. Fifty thousand to the satisfaction of the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Varanasi. One of such sureties will be the father of the child delinquent and if he is not alive then his near relative. Bail Granted.