Allahabad High Court
Uzair (Minor) vs State Of U.P. And Another on 22 March, 2021
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1729 of 2020
Revisionist :- Uzair (Minor)
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Kapil Tyagi,Ajay Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State-respondent.
This revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 28.9.2020 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional District and Session Judge, Ghaziabad in Criminal Appeal No.52 of 2020 (Uzair vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No.73 of 2020, under Section 377 IPC and 5/6 POCSO Act at Police Station Kotwali, District Ghaziabad and order dated 17.03.2020 (bail rejection order) passed by Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board, Ghaziabad whereby the learned appellate court dismissed the appeal no.52 of 2020 and affirmed the bail rejection order dated 2.7.2020 passed by Principal Judge Juvenile Justice Board, Ghaziabad of the revisionist.
In short, the allegation made in the first information report against the revisionist, is that on 25.1.2020, the revisionist Uzair, who is minor and studying in Madarsa, has committed unnatural intercourse with the victim, who is also a boy and studying in the same Madarsa.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in the present case because some group of person alongwith complainant wanted to take the property of alleged Madarsa in very low payment, which was refused by the father and grand-father of the revisionist, therefore, just to create pressure, the impugned first information has been lodged against the revisionist. He has further submitted that the revisionist has been declared juvenile but his bail application has been rejected by the learned Board as well as by learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal without any convincing basis for giving finding that if the revisionist is released he is likely to come into association with several known and unknown criminals and expose them to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice. He has further submitted that from bare perusal of the evidence, collected by the investigating officer, it is clear that no case under Section 377 IPC is made out against the revisionist. Neither he committed any unnatural intercourse with the victim nor he molested him. He has further submitted that as per medical examination report of the victim, it is clear that there is no internal injury seen on the body of the injured and there is no mark of sexual assault. The investigating officer has submitted charge sheet against the revisionist in collusion with opposite party no.2. The revisionist having no criminal history is in jail since 26.01.2020.
Countering the above said submissions, on the other hand, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the revisionist and submitted that the revisionist has committed heinous offence of unnatural act upon minor boy, who is also studying in Madarsa, therefore, in view of the finding recorded by the court below, the revisionist is not entitled for bail.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders passed by the learned courts below along with entire material on record as well as the provisions of the Act.
The Principal Judge Juvenile Justice Board as well as Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad have rightly rejected the bail application of the revisionist holding that the revisionist has committed heinous offence of unnatural act and he is habitual offender and if he is released on bail he will associates with unknown criminals, which would defeat the ends of justice, therefore, in view of the finding recorded by the court below, the revisionist is not entitled for bail.
In view of the aforesaid, the prayer for bail to the revisionist is hereby refused. Accordingly, the bail of the revisionist is rejected.
However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 22.3.2021
Ajeet
