SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sartaz vs State Of U.P. on 4 February, 2020


?Court No. – 64

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 17097 of 2019

Applicant :- Sartaz

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Vikas Rana,Suresh Singh

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

Supplementary affidavit filed in Court today, is taken on record.

Heard leaned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused the material brought on record.

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime No. 238/2018, under Section 377 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, police station Jahanabad, District Pilibhit with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the accused-applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It was submitted that applicant has not committed any such crime, as alleged and there is no independent witness of alleged incident. It was further submitted that as per medical examination report, victim has not sustained any injury. It has further been submitted that during trial, complainant and victim boy have already been examined and that they have not supported the prosecution version and turned hostile. It was further argued that the applicant is in judicial custody since 06.07.2018, having no criminal history and that in case, applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail.

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and argued that applicant is named in the FIR. As per medical examination report, age of the victim boy was about 4 years and there are allegations against the applicant that he has committed carnal intercourse against the order of nature with victim boy. It has been submitted that case is quite heinous.

Perusal of record shows that case pertains to sexual molestation of a 4-5 old years boy. After considering submissions of learned counsel for the parties, looking into the seriousness of the allegations, gravity of the offence, severity of punishment and considering all attending facts and circumstances of the case, no case for grant of bail is made out.

Accordingly, the instant bail application filed on behalf of applicant Sartaz is rejected.

However, keeping in view the period of detention of the applicant, learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to decide the same expeditiously, preferably, if possible, within a period of nine months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

A copy of this order be forwarded to the concerned court below for necessary compliance.

Order Date :- 4.2.2020




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2022 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation