Allowed

Sarthak Keshari v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Sept 2022CRLR/782/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal revision filed by a juvenile accused of murder and wounding. Setting aside previous orders rejecting bail, the court held that the case relied on circumstantial evidence and released the juvenile on bail with sureties.

What did the court decide?

The orders rejecting bail were set-aside and the revisionist was released on bail with two solvent sureties subject to undertakings.

Sarthak Keshari Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 92

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 782 of 2022

¶3

Revisionist :- 'X' Juvenile Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Manoj Srivastava,Arvind Srivastava Iii

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pratik Kumar,Swayamjeet Sharma

¶5

Hon'ble Gajendra Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with a prayer to set-aside the judgment and order dated 25.01.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Mirzapur dismissing the Criminal Appeal No.01 of 2022 ('X' Juvenile Vs. State of U.P.) and the impugned orders dated 07.01.2022 and 25.10.2021 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Mirzapur rejecting the bail applications of the revisionist in Case Crime No.138 of 2021, under Sections 452, 307, 308 and 302 IPC at Police StationKotwali Katra, District-Mirzapur. It is further prayed to release the revisionist on bail in the aforesaid case crime.

¶9

It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that in this case an F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant on 05.09.2021 in respect to an incident dated 04.09.2021 against the unknown person. It is alleged in the FIR that the brother of the first informant namely Anajni was worshiping in temple at ground floor of the house and after that when he came back he saw his wife Puneeta lying in bed covered in blood. It is further submitted that the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased Puneeta Keshari was conducted on 28.11.2021 at PHC, Varanasi. It is further submitted that the statement of the first informant Jai Prakash has been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein he has not disclosed as to who had murdered Puneeta. It is further submitted that the revisionist was arrested on 22.09.2021 and after declaring the revisionist juvenile, he was in observation home since 22.09.2021. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that an application on behalf of revisionist through his father has been moved before the learned Court below, wherein the Court concerned had passed the order dated 19.10.2021 and declared the revisionist juvenile.

¶10

It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer, during investigation, has collected the evidence and on the basis of confessional statement of the accused, charge-sheet was submitted. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance upon the decision of the judgment of this Court passed in Criminal Revision No.4141 of 2017 (Dharmendra (Juvenile) Vs. State of U.P. & Another), dated 13.04.2018.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed this criminal revision and submitted that too liberal interpretation in matters of ghastly crime would result in defeat ends of justice. He has further submitted that release of revisionist on bail in every case without considering the gravity of the allegation is not mandatory and as such, the juvenile is not entitled to be released on bail. In support of his submissions, learned AGA has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court passed in Criminal Revision No.2418 of 2016 ( Suraj Gupta Thru his Father namely Arjun Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and Another), dated 01.11.2017 .

¶12

After perusal of material on record this Court finds that this case is totally based on circumstantial evidence and there is no direct evidence against the accused so far as the involvement and complicity of the case is concerned. This Court finds that no other evidence was collected against the juvenile and injured Tejas Keshari has also not supported the case of prosecution at the stage of trial/enquiry. In the opinion of the Court, the impugned orders have been passed in disregard of the provisions of Section- 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 on the basis of presumption and conjectures. Admittedly, the accused has no criminal history.

¶13

In view of the above, revision is allowed and the orders dated 25.01.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Mirzapur and 07.01.2022 and 25.10.2021 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Mirzapur are hereby set-aside.

¶14

Let the revisionist, 'X' Juvenile through his natural guardian Sri Om Prakash Keshari, R/o Mohalla Dankinganj Chinhwa Inara, Police Station Kotwali Katra, District Mirzapur be released on bail in Case Crime No.138 of 2021, under Sections 452, 307, 308 and 302 IPC at Police Station- Kotwali Katra, District-Mirzapur upon his father furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of his relatives, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board/court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶15

(i) that the natural guardian/father-Om Prakash Keshari will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail the juvenile will not be permitted to come into contact or association with any known criminal or allowed to be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger and further that the mother will ensure that the juvenile will not indulge in any criminal activity;

¶16

(ii) The revisionist shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses;

¶17

(iii) The revisionist through guardian shall also file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court;

¶18

Order Date :- 23.9.2022 SK Goswami

¶19

Digitally signed by SHIVAKANT GOSWAMI Date: 2022.09.30 18:08:07 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sarthak Keshari v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarthak Keshari v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of U.P. Vs Om Prakash

MINAUAand Others Vs State of U.P.

Dhundha Vs State of U.P.

X (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mr.X(Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another

X (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others