Pintu alias Brajveer Tyagi v. State of U.P. and another)
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:137327 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 26806 of 2025 Applicant :- Bunty Tyagi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Kesarwani,Sudhir Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Legal Reasoning
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Kesarwani, learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for State. 2. Present application has been preferred with prayer to quash the order dated 07.04.2025 passed by learned Session Judge, Meerut in Criminal Revision no. 263 of 2025 (Pintu alias Brajveer Tyagi vs. State of U.P. and another) (arising out of Crime no. 105 of 2025) under sections 191(2), 190, 109, 352 BNS & section 3/25 Arms Act, PS- Mawana, District Meerut. 3. Through the instant application, judgment and order dated 07.04.2025 has been put under challenge which has been passed by learned court of Sessions Judge, Meerut while entertaining Criminal Revision no. 263 of 2025 at the behest of opposite party no. 2 (informant) in Case Crime no. 105 of 2025 wherein, charge sheet is still pending, meaning thereby conduction of inquiry at the behest of Inquiry Officer is still to be concluded and preferred in shape of police report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. but at the same time, remand application has been preferred by prosecution for seeking remand of the applicant in respect of sections 191(2), 190, 109, 352 BNS and the remand application was allowed only in respect of section 191(2), 190and 352 BNS and section 3/25 Arms Act. So far as regarding section 109 BNS is concerned, the remand was refused vide order dated 25.03.2025. 4. Being aggrieved with order dated 25.03.2025, informant/opposite party no. 2 challenged the refusal of the remand specifically in pursuance to Section 109 of BNS has been put under challenge while preferring criminal revision no. 263 of 2025 and the same has been partly allowed vide judgment and order dated 07.04.2025. While partly allowing criminal revision preferred at the behest of opposite party no. 2, the specific finding has been recorded that re-consideration of the remand in respect of section 109 of BNS be done after reconsidering with going through the Case Diary and evidence available and if possible after calling for ballistic report of the country made pistol recovered from applicant. It is the admitted case of the applicant in respect of recovery which has been made during investigation in shape of country made pistol but the opinion of learned trial court in respect of distance which is 100 meters has been put under the doubt without seeking any ballistic report from expert. 5. The criteria and the scope of adjudicating the Criminal Revision has been put under challenge by way of taking reliance of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State represented by Inspector of Police and others vs. NMT Joy Immaculate decided on 05.05.2004 arising out of SLP (Crl.) nos. 3143-3144 of 2002. Learned counsel for the applicant precisely sought attention of the court over para no. 13 of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court which is reproduced hereinbelow: "13. Section 167 Cr.P.C. empowers a Judicial Magistrate to authorize the detention of an accused in the custody of police. Section 209 Cr.P.C. confers power upon a Magistrate to remand an accused to custody until the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions and also until the conclusion of the trial. Section 309 Cr.P.C. confers power upon a Court to remand an accused to custody after taking cognizance of an offence or during commencement of trial when it finds it necessary to adjourn the enquiry or trial. The order of remand has no bearing on the proceedings of the trial itself nor it can have any effect on the ultimate decision of the case. If an order of remand is found to be illegal, it cannot result in acquittal of the accused or in termination of proceedings. A remand order cannot affect the progress of the trial or its decision in any manner. Therefore, applying the test laid down in Madhu Limaye's case (supra), it cannot be categorized even as an "intermediate order". The order is, therefore, a pure and simple interlocutory order and in view of the bar created by sub-section (2) of Section 397 Cr.P.C., a revision against the said order is not maintainable. The High Court, therefore, erred in entertaining the revision against the order dated 6.11.2001 of the Metropolitan Magistrate granting police custody of the accused Joy Immaculate for one day. " 6. Per contra, learned AGA submitted that categorical finding has been recorded by learned revisional court under para 6 and 7 which deals with the contentions as raised by learned counsel for applicant. 7. After having rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties, the precise question which has been placed to be considered before this Court that whether the criminal revision is maintainable or not which is the sole question as raised at the time of argument raised by learned counsel for the applicant before learned revisional court also has not been satisfactorily answered by learned AGA and by way of referring para no. 6 and 7, the same is not dealt in respect of the stage of rejecting or allowing the remand rather the same is dealt in respect of the stage of taking cognizance under Section 190 Cr.P.C. 8. So far as regarding the ratio of judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant is concerned, para 13 as reproduced above crystal clearly shows that by way of cancelling or accepting the remand will not effect the trial. In the instant matter it is very premature to consider, since the charge sheet is still to be filed by concerned Investigating Officer meaning thereby the inquiry is still pending so far as remand is concerned once it has already been held by Hon'ble Apex Court that the same shall not bear any effect over the trial and as such consideration for remand either it has been rejected or allowed is meaningless. No other ground is available before this Court for considering the prayer made through instant application hence the same stands dismissed. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 Shaswat Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad