A. K. Roopanwal, J. - (1.) This criminal revision has been filed against the orders dated 22. 8. 08 and 27. 9. 08 passed by the authorities below whereby both the authorities refused bail to the revisionist in case crime no. 429/08, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B, IPC. It appears from the record that the revisionist was involved in crime no. 429/08, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B, IPC with some other accused. He was declared juvenile by the concerned Juvenile Justice Board and when he moved for bail under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, that bail was refused by the Juvenile Justice Board, Meerut vide order dated 22. 8. 08 holding that there is likelihood that the revisionist may fall in association of known criminals. When the order of the Juvenile Justice Board, Meerut was challenged in appeal, the same view was expressed by the appellate court and the appeal was dismissed. Heard Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA and perused the record. It has been argued by Mr. Singh that even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the revisionist joined hands with some others in the aforesaid crime that alone is not sufficient to satisfy the fact that the revisionist shall fall in "association" of known criminals. I do agree with the argument of Mr. Singh. 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. The above meaning of the word "association" has also been adopted in Legal Glossary, Government of India, 1988 Edition. 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. 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 ). In view of the above, if we see the facts of the present case we would find that there could be no apprehension that the release shall fall the revisionist in "association" of known criminals as there is no past history of criminality against the revisionist so as to apprehend that he may join the criminals in future also. Therefore, this was a case where the bail should have been granted to the revisionist by the authorities below and by not doing the same improper orders have been passed which are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, revision is allowed. Orders dated 22. 8. 08 and 27. 9. 08 are hereby, set aside. The revisionist is directed to be released on bail on his executing two sureties of Rs. 40,000/- each filed by him to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Meerut. One of such sureties shall be filed by his father, if alive, and if not, any of his near relative. .;