# Sujeet Patel @ Golu (Juvenile) Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 3 ILRA 222
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-02-23
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 4476 of 2019
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sujeet-patel-golu-juvenile-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-48181
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973-Section 397/401 - Indian
Penal Code,1860-Sections 302, 201, 394, 411
& Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015-section 12-applicationrejection-grant of bail to juvenile-juvenile is
entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the
Act-U/s 12 -While deciding bail of a
delinquent offender between the age group
of 16-18 years in addition to the ground
provided u/s 12, his
mental,
physical
capacity, ability to understand the gravity of
that
heinous
offence,
including
his
participation
in
the
crime
and
the
circumstances wherein he has committed the
heinous offence could also be taken into
consideration-In the Instant case, accused
murdered
his
maternal
grand
father,
committed loot, mutilated his body and
threw away it to conceal the identity-the
D.P.O. report is not favourable to the child in
conflict with law-he keeps bad company and
his friendship is with persons older than his
age and also not co-operative with his
neighbours-Moreso, He has bad habit of
drugging-Hence,
his
bail
righlty
been
rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board and
appeal by the Appellate Court-The revisionist
is not entiltled for bail.(Para 1 to 14)

B. The prayer for bail may be rejected if
there appear reasonable grounds for
believing that the release of the juvenile is
likely to bring him into the association
with any known criminal or expose him to
moral, physical or psychological danger or
that his release would defeat the ends of
justice-gravity of the offence should be
taken as an obstacle to refuse bail to a
delinquent juvenile. (Para 12)

The revision is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

222 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
permissible to fix its reasonable rent
without regard to the provisions of the
Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control
Act, 1961. This view will, in our opinion,
give proper effect to the non-obstante
clause in clause (b), with due regard to its
other provision that the letting value should
be "reasonable"."

17. A 'special law' means a provision of
law, which is not applicable generally but which
applies to a particular or specific subject or class
of subjects. Section 41 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 stands on the same footing and
defines the phrase "special law". A special law
or a statute is applicable to a particular subject,
then the same would prevail over a general law
with regard to the very subject. This is the
accepted principle in the field of interpretation
of statute.

18. Section 147 of N.I. Act starts with a
non - obstante clause and is an affirmative
enactment and as such has an overriding effect
on Section 320 Cr.P.C.

19. An offence of dishonour of cheque is
the compensatory aspect of the remedy which
should be given priority over the punitive
aspect.

20. Having regard to the aforesaid
position of law, even though the parties have
arrived at a settlement after the Appellate Court
had upheld the conviction of the petitioner, yet
keeping in view the spirit of Section 147 of the
NI Act, the offence under Section 138 of the
Act can be compounded. Therefore, this is a fit
case where cost is required to be waived while
compounding the offence. Since the parties
have settled their disputes, it is in the fitness of
things to close it at this stage itself as the
conditions of settlement are mutually accepted
between them. The dispute is an inter-se dispute
between the parties and by entering into a
settlement they have closed the dispute which
had arisen between them.

21. From perusal of the records and the
law laid down by the Apex Court on the subject
matter, the present case is a good case for
exercising powers by this Court to allow the
present revision.

22. The present revision is allowed. The
conviction and sentence under Section 138 of
the N.I. Act stands annulled as this Court
intends. The revisionist is acquitted on account
of compounding of the offence with the
complainant/person
affected
before
the
mediation centre of this Court.

23. The judgment and order dated
23.7.2016 passed by Sri Prabhakar Rao, H.J.S.,
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.12, Agra
in Criminal Appeal No.74 of 2012 (Hari Om
Vs. Hari Shankar Yadav) and judgment and
order dated 24.2.2012 passed by Sri Ishtiyak
Ali, A.C.J.M, Court No.7, Agra in Complaint
Case no.1371 of 2011 (Hari Shankar Yadav Vs.
Hari Om), u/s 138 N.I. Act, P.S. Tajganj,
District Agra are hereby set-aside.

24. Office is directed to communicate this
order to the concerned court within two weeks
from today.
----------
(2022)03ILR A222
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.02.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SYED AFTAB HUSAIN RIZVI, J.

Criminal Revision No. 4476 of 2019

Sujeet Patel @ Golu (Juvenile)
 ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties
3 All. Sujeet Patel @ Golu (Juvenile) Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
223
Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Praveen Kumar Srivastava, Sri Sanjay
Kumar Yadav, Sri Shri Ram Yadav

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Rajendra Singh, Sri Sarvagya
Singh, Sri Shiv Bahadur Singh

A.
Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973-Section 397/401 - Indian
Penal Code,1860-Sections 302, 201, 394, 411
& Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015-section 12-applicationrejection-grant of bail to juvenile-juvenile is
entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the
Act-U/s 12 -While deciding bail of a
delinquent offender between the age group
of 16-18 years in addition to the ground
provided u/s 12, his
mental,
physical
capacity, ability to understand the gravity of
that
heinous
offence,
including
his
participation
in
the
crime
and
the
circumstances wherein he has committed the
heinous offence could also be taken into
consideration-In the Instant case, accused
murdered
his
maternal
grand
father,
committed loot, mutilated his body and
threw away it to conceal the identity-the
D.P.O. report is not favourable to the child in
conflict with law-he keeps bad company and
his friendship is with persons older than his
age and also not co-operative with his
neighbours-Moreso, He has bad habit of
drugging-Hence,
his
bail
righlty
been
rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board and
appeal by the Appellate Court-The revisionist
is not entiltled for bail.(Para 1 to 14)

B. The prayer for bail may be rejected if
there appear reasonable grounds for
believing that the release of the juvenile is
likely to bring him into the association
with any known criminal or expose him to
moral, physical or psychological danger or
that his release would defeat the ends of
justice-gravity of the offence should be
taken as an obstacle to refuse bail to a
delinquent juvenile. (Para 12)

The revision is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
1. Dr. Subramaniam Swami Vs Raju (2014) 86
ACC 637

2. Pradeep Kumar Vishwakarma Vs St. (2019)
109 ACC 73, CRLA No. 3526 of 2018

3. Ankur (minor) Vs St. CRLA No. 2909 of 2017,
AHC

4. Rohit(minor) Vs St. (2019) 107 ACC 247,
CRLR No. 310 of 2018

5. Lalit @ Chena Vs St. of U.P., CRLR No. 737
of 2020, AHC

6. Mohd. Najmuddin (minor) Vs St. of U.P.,
CRLR No. 1800 of 2020, AHC

7. Kanchan Sonkar (minor) Vs St. of U.P., CRLR
No. 1266 of 2020, AHC

8. Ezij @ Bikanu Vs St. of U.P. (2006) ACC 731,
AHC

9. Satya Deo @ Bhura Vs St. of U.P. (2020) 10
SCC Pg 555

10. Radhika (juvenile) Vs St. of U.P. CRLA No.
4418 of 2019

(Delivered by Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain
Rizvi, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party
no.2/complainant, learned AGA for the State and
perused the material brought on record.

2. This criminal revision has been filed on
behalf of child in conflict with law through his
father, the natural guardian against the judgment
and order dated 04.11.2019 passed in Criminal
Appeal No.142 of 2019, arising out of Case
Crime No.1 of 2019, under sections 302, 201,
394, 411, IPC, Police Station Lohata, District
Varanasi.

3. In brief the facts are that
complainant Arun Kumar, lodged an FIR
224 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
on 01.01.2019 at 14:41 O'clock that he
received an information on mobile of his
father from another mobile that a mutilated
unknown dead body is lying near Kishaur
Bridge, which is unidentifiable. On this
information he reached near Kishaur
Bridge and saw the dead body which was
of Prem Chandra Singh, his uncle (elder
brother of his father), who was residing at
Parmanandpur, Police Station Shivpur. It
appears that his uncle was brutally
murdered and dead body thrown near
Kishaur Bridge to conceal it. The skull of
the dead body was badly mutilated and legs
were tied. During investigation the name of
revisionist-accused came in the light. He
alongwith two other co-accused were
arrested by the police on 14.01.2019 and
from the possession of the revisionistaccused the Aadhar Card, A.T.M. Card of
deceased, Rs.700/- cash and one bunch of
keys and some looted articles (ornaments)
and one mobile phone were recovered from
his possession and at his instance one iron
rod, which was used in the crime was also
recovered.

4. The prosecution version is that the
deceased
was
maternal
grandfather
(Chachera Nana) of the revisionist-accused
and
was
a
retired
pharmacist.
On
31.12.2018 he was alone at his house. At
8.30 P.M., the revisionist-accused with his
two friends went to the house of the
deceased on the pretext that his friend is ill.
As deceased knew the revisionist (child in
conflict with law) he opened the door and
all the three entered into the house and
when deceased was examining and giving
medicines to his friend, the revisionistaccused hit on his head from behind with
an iron rod. Deceased fell down then all the
three accused wrapped him in a bed sheet
and inflicted several blows with iron rod.
Thereafter they committed loot in the house
of the deceased and also took in possession
the keys of the house. After committing
loot they put the dead body of the deceased
in the Alto Car of the deceased, parked in
the porch of the house and driving the
vehicle they came at Kishaur Bridge and
threw away the dead body there.

5. The revisionist (child in conflict
with law) was declared a juvenile on the
basis of high school certificate, in which
his date of birth is recorded as 11.08.2002
and on the date of incident his age was 16
years, 4 months and 20 days. The Juvenile
Justice Board conducted the preliminary
assessment with regard to his mental and
physical capacity to commit the offence,
ability to understand the consequence of
the offence and the circumstances in which
he allegedly committed the offence and
vide order dated 16.09.2019, transferred his
case for trial to the children court (POCSO
court). The trial of the revisionist-accused
is
pending
before
that
court.
Bail
application of the revisionist (Juvenile)
moved before the Juvenile Justice Board
was rejected on 02.09.2019 and a criminal
appeal was preferred against the aforesaid
order, has been dismissed on 04.11.2019 by
the Special Judge (POSCO Act)/Additional
Session Judge, Court No.10, Varanasi.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist
submitted that Juvenile Justice Board called
a report from D.P.O. and has observed that
as per conclusion of the inquiry the child is
involved with other persons and have
friendship with the persons older than his
age. The learned counsel for the revisionist
submitted that the D.P.O. report does not
disclose that after release the revisionist
may come with association of known or
unknown criminals, but the Juvenile Justice
Board has rejected the bail application of
the revisionist on the ground of serious
3 All. Sujeet Patel @ Golu (Juvenile) Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
225
nature of offence as well as on the ground
that his release is likely to bring him into
association with a gang or bad persons.
Learned counsel for the revisionist also
contended that the revisionist filed an
appeal against the aforesaid order on the
ground that revisionist has no criminal
history and detained since 14.01.2019.
There is no direct evidence and case is
based on circumstantial evidence. Nothing
has been recovered from the possession of
revisionist and there is no possibility of his
association
with
know
or
unknown
criminals if released on bail, but the
appellate court has not considered the
aforesaid
grounds
and
illegally
and
arbitrarily rejected the appeal on the ground
of nature of the offence. Learned counsel
for the revisionist further contended that as
per section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act,
2015 a juvenile shall be released on bail,
except the following three grounds:-

"(i) If there appear reasonable
ground for believing that the release is
likely to bring him into association with
any unknown or known criminals. or

(ii) that it will expose him to
moral, physical or physiological danger. or

(iii) that his release would defeat
the ends of justice."

He also contended that the
grounds taken by both the courts below do
not come under the purview of the above
three exceptions mentioned in section 12 of
the Juvenile Justice Act. Both the courts
below rejected the bail of the revisionist on
the ground of seriousness of the offence,
which is not sustainable in the eye of law,
as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex
Court as well as the High Court. He placed
reliance on the following citations on this
points:-

"(i) Dr. Subramaniam Swami Vs.
Raju, 2014 (86) ACC 637.

(ii) Pradeed Kumar Vishwakarma
Vs. State, (2019) 109 ACC 73, Criminal
Appeal No.3526 of 2018.

(iii) Ankur (minor) Vs. State,
Criminal Revision No.2909 of 2017,
Allahabad
High
Court,
decided
on
24.04.2018.

(iv) Rohit (minor) Vs. State, 2019
(107) ACC 247, Criminal Revision No.310
of 2018.

(v) Criminal Revision No.737 of
2020 (Lalit @ Chena Vs. State of U.P.),
Allahabad
High
Court,
decided
on
03.12.2020.

(vi) Criminal Revision No.1800
of 2020 (Mohd. Najmuddin (Minor) Vs.
State of U.P.), Allahabad High Court,
decided on 04.05.2021.

(vii) Criminal Revision No.1266
of 2020 (Kanchan Sonkar (minor) Vs. State
of U.P.), Allahabad High Court, deided on
01.12.2020.

(viii) Ezij @ Bikanu Vs. State of
U.P., 2006 (Supplementary) ACC 731,
Allahabad High Court."

Learned counsel for the revisionist
further contended that maximum period for
which revisionist-accused can be sentenced is
three years. He is detained since 14.01.2019
and there is no hope of early disposal of trial.
On the aforesaid grounds the learned counsel
for the revisionist submitted that he may be
released on bail.

7. Learned counsel also placed reliance
on citation of Satya Deo @ Bhura Vs. State
of U.P. (2020) 10 SCC page 555. In this case
the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding
conviction set-aside the sentence of life
imprisonment and remanded the matter to the
Board for passing appropriate order/direction
under section 15 of the Act.

8. Learned AGA and learned counsel
for the opposite party no.2 (complainant)
226 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
vehemently
opposed
the
prayer
and
submitted that the offence is of a heinous
nature, as defined in section 2 (33). The
learned counsel placing reliance on a
judgment passed in Criminal Appeal
No.4418 of 2019 (Radhika (juvenile) Vs.
State
of
U.P.),
decided
05.08.2019,
submitted that while deciding bail of
juvenile between the age group of 16-18
years, who is an accused of a heinous
offence his mental, physical capacity,
ability to understand the gravity of the
offence are also to be considered. Learned
counsel also contended that as the offence
is of heinous nature maximum three years
sentence is also not applicable. It is further
contended that revisionist-accused has
committed the brutal murder with intention
of loot and also committed the loot. He is
close
relation
of
deceased
and
has
committed betrayal of trust of relation. The
murder has been committed in gruesome
manner breaking the skull and face of the
deceased in pieces and body thrown away
by taking it from the car of the deceased to
conceal the identity. Learned counsel also
contended that the D.P.O. report is also
adverse to the revisionist-accused. It is
mentioned in it that his company is not
good and his friendship is with the persons
to older than his age. On the basis of D.P.O.
report the learned court below had held that
if he is released on bail then he may come
in association with any gang or bad
persons. It is also contended that trial is
going on and cross examination of the
witness is proceeding. There is no infirmity,
illegality or perversity in the finding
recorded by the courts below, hence the
revision is liable to be dismissed. The
revisionist is not entitled for bail.

9. The allegations against the
revisionist-accused is that he committed the
murder of his maternal grand father
(Chachera Nana) committed loot in his
house, mutilated his body and threw away
it to conceal the identity. Looted articles is
alleged to have been recovered from his
possession also and at his instance the
weapon used in the offence (iron rod) has
also been recovered. The age of the
revisionist-accused on the date of incident
was 16 years, 4 months and 20 days. So he
is in age group of 16-18 years. His trial has
been referred to the POCSO Court by the
Juvenile Justice Board, under the provision
of section 18(3) of the Act, 2015.

10. According to D.P.O. report the
company of the child is not good. He was
studying in Class-12 at Vikash Inter
College, Permanandpur, Varanasi. Earlier
he was a private student. Most of his
friends are educated but older than his age.
The behavior of the neighbours with the
child was not cooperative. He has bad habit
of drugging. In the column of other
remarks it is specifically mentioned that his
company is not good.

11. As the revisionist is an accused of
heinous offence and in between the age
group of 16-18 years, the provisions of
section 18(1) and 18(2) are not applicable.
The board after preliminary assessment has
transferred the case for trial to the children
court (POCSO court) under the provisions
of section 18(3) of the Act. The limit of
maximum three years stay at special home
will also not be applicable. Section 21 will
apply, which provides as follows:-

"21. No child in conflict with law
shall be sentenced to death or for life
imprisonment without the possibility of
release, for any such offene, either under
the provisions of this Act or under the
provisions of the Indian Penal Code or any
other law for the time being in force."
3 All. Sujeet Patel @ Golu (Juvenile) Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
227

12. This Court in Criminal Appeal
No.4418 of 2019 (Radhika (juvenile) Vs.
State of U.P.), decided 05.08.2019, in para
no.32
has
made
the
following
observations:-

"[32] This in fact is a dichotomy,
whereby a juvenile delinquent is being
released on bail except those above three
conditions
provided
under
Section
12(Proviso) of the Act, that too as a matter
of right. On the other hand, they shall be
tried as adults and could be awarded any
sentence as per the discretion of the court
provided under the law, except the life
sentence
and
death
sentence.
This
dichotomous situation could be resolved by
taking the recourse of "object" of the
legislation and Para 4 of the Statement of
object and reasons, clearly mandates that
the enactment of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000
was ill-equipped to tackle child offenders
between the age group of 16-18 years and
involved in heinous offences, like, murder,
gang rape, solitary-rape, bride burning etc.
and to resolve this impasse, the court holds
that for the purposes of bail to the
adolescent offender between the age group
of 16-18 years, involved in the heinous
offence like murder, solitary-rape, gangrape, bride burning, drug trafficking, the
beneficial legislation for the purposes of
bail under Section 12 of the Act shall not
apply in its present shape and format. It
would be no more as a matter of right to
such delinquent minor, who is involved in
heinous offences. It is not possible to
furnish exhaustive list of such offences but
it definitely connotes the same meaning as
defined in Section 2(33) of the Act. While
deciding the bail of such delinquent
offender ranging between the age group of
16-18 years would be discretionary upon
the court, which shall in addition to those
grounds
provided
under
Section
12(Proviso) of the Act, also take into
account with regard to his mental, physical
capacity, ability to understand the gravity
of that heinous offence, including their
respective participation in the crime and the
circumstances wherein he/they has/have
allegedly committed that particular grave
and serious offence. All these factors too
are
determinative
factors
while
adjudicating
the
bail
applications
of
juvenile offenders in the age group of 1618 years, else it would be a mockery of
legislation and the object of the present
legislation would reduce to naught."

The aforesaid view is a reasoned
one and I am also in agreement with it.
While deciding the bail application of a
delinquent offender between the age group
of 16-18 years in addition to the ground
provided under section 12 (proviso of the
act), his mental, physical capacity, ability to
understand the gravity of that heinous
offence, including his participation in the
crime and the circumstances wherein he
has committed the heinous offence could
also be taken into consideration.

13. In this case the D.P.O. report is
also not favorable to the revisionist (child
in conflict with law). It is clearly stated in it
that his company is not good and his
friendship is with persons older than his
age. He has also bad habit of drugging.
Hence the finding of the Juvenile Justice
Board that there appears reasonable ground
to believe that his release is liable to bring
him into association with any known
criminal, cannot be said to be un-reasoned
and perverse. Considering his participation
in the crime and the circumstances in which
he has committed the heinous offence and
also taking into account his mental,
physical capacity and also ability to
understand the gravity of the offence, his
release on bail will defeat the ends of
228 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
justice. His bail application has rightly been
rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board and
appeal by the appellate court. Both the
courts below have not committed any legal
error in rejecting the bail application. There
is no perversity or illegality in the findings
recorded by the learned courts below. The
revisionist (child in conflict with law) is not
entitled for bail. Revision is liable to be
dismissed. For speedy trial, direction may
be issued.

14. Accordingly, the revision is
hereby dismissed.

15. The trial court is directed to
expedite
the
trial
and
conclude
it,
preferably within one year from the date of
production of this order placed before it,
without
granting
any
unnecessary
adjournments,.
----------
(2022)03ILR A228
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

S.C.C. Revision No. 125 of 2014

Govind Saran ...Revisionist
Versus
Km. Shubhi Mishra ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Ashutosh Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Ms. Babita Upadhyay, Sri Pradeep Kumar,
Sri Sanjeev Kumar Gaur

A. Tenancy Law - UP Urban Buildings
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
Act, 1972 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882
- U.O.I. 106 - Notice to quit - Termination
of tenancy - Validity - Classification of
notices into seven category, marked as 'A'
to 'J', made by the Supreme Court in Abdul
Jalil's case, was overruled by the larger
Bench in Dharam Raj Sahu's case -
Consequence - Held, there is no prescribed
form or language which alone would
qualify for a valid notice under Section 106
of the Act of 1882 - Notice has to be
liberally construed and read as a whole in
order to find out the intention of the
landlord or the lessor. (Para 20, 22 and 23)
B. Tenancy law - Transfer of Property Act,
1882 - Secton 114 - Tenant's entitlement
to be relieved of liability from eviction on
deposit of arrears of rent and cost of suit -
No written lease for specific period - Effect
- Held, the question of forfeiture generally
arises if there is a written lease carrying
terms that entitle the lessor to re-enter, if
violated by the tenant and the lease is for a
specific duration or perpetual in nature.
The entire gamut of provisions of Sections
111, 112, 113 and 114 of the Act of 1882
would not apply in the case of a tenancy
that is month-to-month, which can be
terminated by a notice simplicitor under
Section 106 of the Act of 1882, without the
question of forfeiture at all figuring -High
Court granted six months time to vacate
the demised shop. (Para 26)
Revision dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited :-
1. Abdul Jalil Vs Haji Abdul Jalil; AIR 1974 All
402
2. Atkinson Vs Bradley; (1885) ILR 7 All 899
(FB)
3. B.R. Trading Company & anr. Vs Dharam Raj
Sahu & ors.; 2007 SCC OnLine All 885
4. Vinod Kumar & ors. Vs Arya Samaj Mandir;
2016 SCC OnLine All 2938
(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This is a tenant's revision under
Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause
Courts Act, 1887 (for short "the Act of