Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Tatireddy Seshadri Shattireddy ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 1 February, 2024
lN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY,
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
:PRESENT.I
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO
IA No.2OF2023
lN
CRLRC NO: 1147 OF 2023
Between:
Tatl'reddy Seshadri @ shattireddy seshadri, s/o Late T. Krishna Reddy, Hindu, aged
about 20 years, R/o Dommi Bommireddi Bai'u Village, S. R. Puram Mandal, Chjttoor
District.
... Revisl'on petitioner/Appellant/Juvenile in Conflict with Law
(Petl'tioner in CRLRC 1147 OF 2023
On the file of High Court)
AND
The State ofAndhra Pradesh, Rep. through public prosecutor, state of Andhra
Pradesh Hl'gh Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati
... Respondent
(Respondents in-do-)
petitI'On under Section 397(1) of Cr.P.C is filed prayl'ng that in the
circumstances stated in memorandum of grounds of criml-hal revision case, the High
court may be pleased to enlarg6.'the revision petitioner/Juvenile in Conflict with Law
on ba" pending disposal of the criminal Revision Petition by suspending the sentence
I-mPOSed by the Judgement dated 26-10-2015 passed I-n CC No.37 of 2013 on the file
of the principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice board at Tirupati confirmed by th,e
Judgement, dated 22-09-2023 passed in criminal Appeal No.405 of 2015 on the file
of the Ill Additional District and sessions Judge at Tirupathi, pending disposal of
CRLRC No.1147 of 2023, on the file of the High Court.
The petl'tion coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and
memorandum of grounds of criml'nal revl'sion case and upon hearing the arguments of
sri Adarshitha Kilaru, Advocate for the pet,'tioner and public prosecutor for the
Respondent, the court made the following;
ORDER:
""Heard learned counsel for the Revl-sl-on Petitioner.
This interlocutory applic.ati`on is filed praying the court to enlarge the
revision petitioner/Juvenile I-n conflict with Law on bail, pending disposal of the
crI-minaI Revision case by suspending the sentence imposed I-n the Judgment
dated 26.1O.2O15 passed in c.c.No|37/2013 on the file of the learned principal
Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board at Tirupati confirmed by the Judgment dated
22.9.2023 passed I-n Crl.Appeal No.4O5/2015 on the file of the learned Ill
Addl-tionaI District & sessions Judge at Tirupati.
Learned counsel for the petitI-Oner contends that the petitl-oner is shown
to be Juvenile in confll-ct with Law as on the date of alleged offence as per the
orders of the princl-pal Magistrate, Juvenile JustI-Ce Board. By vI'rtue of the
judgment dated 26.10.2015 convicted the petitI-Oner/Juvenile in conflict with
Law for the offences punishable under sections 302 and 307 read with 34 of lPC
and sent the petitI-Oner to Special Home for Boys, Tirupati for rehabl-Iitatl'on as
per section 15(1)(g) of the Juvenile Justice Act for a perl-od of three (3) years.
The incI-dent I-n question occurred on lO.6.2O12. In the judgment the age of the
Petl'tjoner is shown as 17 years.
Aggrl-eved by the said order, the petitioner preferred crI-minaI Appeal
vide crI.A.No.4O5/2015 on the file of the Ill Additl-anal sessions Judge, TirupatI-.
whI-le disposing the crI.AppeqI No.4O5/2015 learned Ill AddI-tiOnal Sessions
Judge by virtue of the judgment dated 22.9.2023 confirmed the sentence passed
against the petI-tI-Oner/Juvenl-le conflict in Law and dismI-SSed the appeal.
It is submI-tted that the petitI-Oner is on ba" throughout the proceedl'ngs
before the Juvenile Justice Board, TI-ruPati as we" as the Ill AdditI-anal Sessions
Court, Tirupatl-.
perused the judgments. The judgments do not disclose that the petitI-Oner
in one way or other way violated the conditions of the trial and it does not show
that the petl-tioner not cooperated with the trl-al proceedings. According to the
counsel for the petitioner, now the petitioner is aged about 27 years and no
purpose would be served by sending hI-m to Government specI-al Home. In
support of her contention, the learned counsel for the petI-tiOner relied on a
judgment reported in between saI" Bhai vs. union of lndia1.
without expressing any opl-nion on the said contention raised, this court
views that as the petitl-oner was shown to be on bal-I through the proceedings
before the Juvenile Justice Board and in Appellate court and on behalf of the
petitioner an affl-davit also filed by the Juvenile's Guardian stall-ng that he is
ready and willing to cooperate with the process of law and sha" faithfully
Tea:se
he I-s ::sehr=av±s=`:
also ready to n._pe_tit_-I?n=
accept a" ther.=v.?-'lable
condI-lionsbefore ihe co=i
Which the-;;=:i:er-lrl=:ul.lar==Tual:yd
Court may deem fit to
impose upon hI-m. ln the said facts of the case, this court is inclined to grant
bail to the petl-tioner.
7 SCC 709
The petitioner herein shall be released on bail On executing a Personal
bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) With two (02) sureties (one
surety shall be sri T.Narasimha Reddy, Juvenile's Guardian) for a like sum each
to the satisfaction of the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board at
Tirupati."
SD/-K.J.RAJA BABU
ASSISTANT R lSTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
To,
1. The Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board at Tirupati.
2. The Superintendent, Government Special Home for Boys, Tirupati.
3. The Ill Additional District & Sessions Judge at Tirupati
4. One CC to Sri. Adarshitha Kilaru, Advocate [OPUC]
5. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court ofAP [OUT]
6. Sri T.Narasimha Reddy, (Juvenile's Guardian)
7. One spare copy
MM
HIGH COURT
TMR,J
DATED..01 /02/2024
ORDER
CRLRC.No.1147 of 2O23
DIRECTION
•-\
i_;g iu` AL a €'{l'it=``£;
?C,
T1-,
-1fEB2024
ig,+:/
