JUDGMENT :

(Gajendra Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri D.S. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by S/Sri Prabhashankar Chaturvedi, Abhishek Kumar Mishra and Chandrakesh Mishra, Sr. Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Satyendra Tiwari, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State respondents.

2. Present petition has been filed with the following prayers:-

^^1- ;g fd lEekuuh; U;k;ky; canh izR;{khdj.k izd`fr ds ;kfpdkns'k] vkns’k@funsZ'k ds ek/;e ls ;kph dks l'kjhj@lnsg ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds le{k mifLFkr djus gsrq mRrjoknhx.k dks vknsf'kr@funsZf'kr djus dh egrh d`ik djsaA

2- ;g fd lEekuuh; U;k;ky; canh izR;{khdj.k izd`fr ds ;kfpdkns'k] vkns'k@funs'k ds ek/;e ls ;kph dh vk|ksikUr] dzekuqxr@yxkrkj orZeku fu:f) o vfHkj{kk dks ;qDr;qfDrd &#2338ax ls iw.kZ:is.k o lansgjfgr fof/kd izfdz;k ds vuqdwy o vuq:i fl) djus gqrq mRrjoknhx.k lesr muds lg;ksxh@ lgdehZ dks vknsf'kr@funsZf'kr djus dh egrh d`ik djsaA

3- ;g fd lEekuuh; U;k;ky; canh izR;{khdj.k izd`fr ds ;kfpdkns'k] vkns'k@funs'k ds ek/;e ls ;kfpdk ds yEcu vof/k rd tekur ij vfHkj{kk ls eqDr djus gsrq vknsf'kr@funsZf'kr djus dh egrh d`ik djsaA

4- ;g fd ekuuh; U;k;ky; canh izR;{khdj.k izd`fr ds ;kfpdkns'k] vkns'k@funs'k ds ek/;e ls ;kph dh vk|ksikUr yxkrkj] orZeku vfHkj{kk fu:f) dks vfof/kd] vlaoS/kkfud ?kksf"kr djrs gq, ;kph dks vfHkj{kk ls vfoyEc eqDr@Lora= djus dh egrh d`ik djsaA^^

3. This petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner-Yuvraj Yadav (corpus) who claims to have been falsely implicated in Case Crime No.558 of 2022, under sections 376, 506, 342 I.P.C. and section ¾ POCSO Act. It is also claimed that FIR has been lodged by the father of the victim and her age therein has been shown as 15 years, which is not true one. The allegation is that petitioner is detained in illegal custody, which is unconstitutional and contrary to law. On behalf of the petitioner an application dated 15.09.2022 was moved with the prayer that remand order may kindly be cancelled which is under section ¾ POCSO Act. On 15.09.2022 the trial court has, without jurisdiction, in a mechanical and arbitrary way, signed custody warrant from dated 02.09.2022 to 15.09.2022. Later on, remand order was mechanically signed, as there was no case diary and any documents/papers regarding the case, were presented before the trial court. It has been specifically mentioned in the application dated 15.09.2022 that under The Right To Information Act, date of birth of the victim in first school, attended from Khand Shiksha Adhikari, Mauaima, Prayagraj was asked for, according to which victim was major and her age was more than 20 years. Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, POCSO Act, Prayagraj fixed a date 21.09.2022 for disposal and order for radiologist's report of the victim. The victim's father submitted an affidavit dated 11.10.2022 that as the medical examination of the victim has not been done so he does not want to get her daughter/victim to be radiologically examined in accordance with the order dated 21.09.2022 and prayer was made to reject the same and to discharge her from radiological examination. Objection was also filed on behalf of the victim along with certificate/marksheet of High School examination of 2021 in which date of birth is shown as 18.07.2022. The trial court has dismissed the application of the petitioner in an arbitrary manner on 11.10.2022, which is contrary to the settled case law. The trial court rejecting the application dated 15.09.2022 by passing the impugned order dated 11.10.2022 by which it has signed remand order under section 3/4 POCSO Act and section 376, 506, 342 IPC which is against the provisions of law. On behalf of the petitioner, case law of Rishipal Singh Solanki v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Sanjeev Kumar Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh were presented along with provisions of J.J. Act, 2015 for perusal but they were not considered and the order was passed to the effect that the age given in 8th standard marksheet is to prevail regarding the age of the victim. T