Delay in a POCSO trial and prolonged custody may justify bail after charges are framed.

The applicant sought bail on behalf of his son, Atiqul Islam, who was in custody in connection with Nongalbibra P.S. Case No. 05 of 2025, registered under Section 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act. Following the filing of the charge sheet, the accused was committed to trial before the Special Judge (POCSO), South Garo Hills, in Special POCSO Case No. 10 of 2025.

Charges were framed on 21 April 2026, but prosecution evidence had not been recorded by the time of the bail hearing. Several scheduled hearings were affected by the survivor’s absence, the filing of a supplementary charge sheet, or the Presiding Officer’s absence. The accused had been in custody for more than a year.

The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the alleged sexual assault of a 13-year-old survivor and the potential sentence; the complainant opposed bail on the grounds that the accused had threatened the survivor and lived about one kilometre away.

1. Whether the accused should be granted bail in light of the delay in recording evidence and completing the trial, despite the seriousness of the alleged POCSO offence.

2. Whether bail could be granted while adequately addressing the alleged risk to the survivor through conditions imposed on the accused.

Article 21 of the Constitution protects an accused person’s right to a speedy trial, irrespective of the nature of the crime; where the State or prosecuting system cannot secure that right, the seriousness of the offence alone should not defeat a plea for bail.

The Court relied on the principle stated in Arvind Dham v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2026) 7 SCC 330, para. 15.

Section 35 of the POCSO Act, 2012, provides for recording the child’s evidence within 30 days of the Special Court taking cognizance and for completion of trial, as far as possible, within one year.

The Court noted that the accused had been in custody for more than a year, charges had been framed, and no prosecution witness had been examined; the charge sheet had also been filed, so further interrogation was unnecessary.

Although the Court recognised the seriousness of the allegations and the complainant’s concerns about the survivor’s safety, it considered the delay in the proceedings and the statutory timelines under Section 35 of the POCSO Act.

It granted bail while addressing the stated risks through conditions prohibiting contact with the survivor and requiring the accused to relocate far from her residence.

The order requires a personal bond of ₹30,000 with one surety of like amount, although the amount is inconsistently written in words as “Rupees Twenty Thousand”.

The petition was disposed of without costs.