NAJUM-UL-HASSAN alias IRSHAD Versus State

ORDER

ALI BAIG, J .---Through the instant petition moved under section 497, Cr.P.C., the petitioner/accused namely Najam-ul-Hassan alias Irshad son of Mohammad Hussain has sought post arrest bail, in case FIR No.02/2020, dated 10-01-2020, registered under sections 364-A, 377 and 511, P.P.C., at Police Station Sikandarabad Nagar, at the instance of Arfan Hussain, brother of victim namely Qamar Abbas.

2. It is pertinent to mention here that earlier the petitioner/accused had filed bail petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Nagar which was dismissed by the learned trial court vide bail order dated 03-03-2020, hence this petition.

3. Briefly the allegations against the petitioner/accused as narrated in the FIR is that the present petitioner/ accused had committed offence of sodomy with the brother of complainant namely Qamar Abbas, aged about 14 years, on 10.01.2020 at 1600 hours at Jaffarabad. The complainant has himself witnessed the occurrence.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/accused has contended that the petitioner/ accused is innocent and complainant has falsely implicated the petitioner/accused in this case as there was a civil litigation between father of the complainant and father of the petitioner/accused which was eventually decided in favour of father of the petitioner by Civil Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused has further argued that it was alleged in the FIR that the victim was taken to the place of occurrence on gun point by the petitioner/accused, but no pistol has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner/ accused by the police. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused has further argued that no independent/ impartial witness has witnessed the occurrence; hence, case of petitioner/ accused requires further inquiry. Concluding his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused has argued that Medico Legal Report is not available on police record; thus, the petitioner is entitled for concession of bail.

5. Conversely, the learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently opposed this petition by contending that the petitioner is directly charged in the promptly lodged FIR with specific role and offence under section 377, P.P.C. falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The learned Deputy Advocate General has further argued that the petitioner has committed an offence of moral turpitude by committing sodomy with a minor boy of 14 years old; thus, the petitioner/ accused is not entitled for concession of bail.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance I have gone through the available record.

7. From perusal of record, it appears that the petitioner/accused is directly nominated in the promptly lodged FIR and complainant himself has witnessed the occurrence. The victim boy has also corroborated the contents of FIR. Offence under section 377, P.P.C. falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The victim boy was also examined by Dr. Kifayat Hussain, M.O. 30 Bedded Hospital Sikandarabad, on the same day of occurrence and he has found abrasive wound on the left thigh of victim and abrasions on both elbows.

8. From tentative assessment of material collected by the police during investigation prima facie connect the petitioner/accused with the alleged offence.

9. Above all, there is nothing on record which could show that enmity exists between the parties and due to that the petitioner/accused has been falsely implicated. There was absolutely no reason, whatsoever, for the complainant as well as the victim to falsely implicate the petitioner/accused in this case/ offence. Moreover, the petitioner/accused has committed an offence of moral turpitude and such like person does not deserve for concession of bail in exercise of discretionary powers under section 497, Cr.P.C.

10. In the above circumstances, no case is made out for grant of post arrest bail. Consequently, this petition being bereft of merit is dismissed. File.

SA/42/GB Bail declined.