Inordinate delay in concluding a POCSO trial warrants bail despite the offence’s gravity.

The petitioner had been in custody since 2 August 2025 in FIR No. 137/2025, registered at Police Station Dharampur, District Solan, under Sections 62, 65(1), 76, 115(2), 45, 132(2) and 127 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 4, 12, 17 and 18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”).

The 14-year-and-9-month-old prosecutrix alleged that co-accused Golu alias Kushal brought her to the petitioner’s room, where the petitioner allegedly attempted to remove her clothes and sexually assault her; she escaped by locking herself in a toilet and was rescued after raising an alarm.

Co-accused Kushal, a juvenile, had already been granted bail.

The police filed the challan on 29 August 2025, and charges were framed on 5 June 2026.

Although the petitioner had remained incarcerated for more than one year, the prosecution had examined only two formal witnesses, and the statement of the prosecutrix had not been recorded despite repeated notices.

The petitioner therefore sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, 2023, notwithstanding the serious nature of the offences alleged under the BNS and POCSO Act.

Whether the prolonged failure to conclude the POCSO trial, particularly the non-recording of the prosecutrix’s evidence, violated the petitioner’s constitutional right to speedy trial under Article 21 and justified release on bail.

Whether the statutory timelines under Section 35 of the POCSO Act had been substantially breached so as to warrant judicial intervention.

The Court applied Section 483 BNSS, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant bail, along with Section 35(1) and (2) of the POCSO Act, which require the evidence of the child to be recorded within thirty days of cognizance and the trial to be completed, as far as possible, within one year.

The Court relied on Article 21 of the Constitution, under which speedy trial is an essential component of the right to life and personal liberty.

It relied on Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India, (2018) 17 SCC 291, for expeditious POCSO trials.

Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352, for the principle that stringent bail provisions cannot justify indefinite pre-trial incarceration.

Shaheen Welfare Association v. Union of India, (1996) 2 SCC 616, and Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra, (2022) 9 SCC 321, for the rule that prolonged detention without a reasonable prospect of an early trial is impermissible.

Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 2787 of 2024, decided on 3 July 2024, along with subsequent decisions, for the proposition that inordinate delay in trial may entitle an accused to bail notwithstanding the seriousness of the offence.

The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations and the minority of the prosecutrix but noted that the petitioner had remained in custody for more than one year without being convicted.

The challan had already been filed and nothing remained to be recovered from him.

Despite the statutory requirement under Section 35 of the POCSO Act, the prosecutrix’s evidence had not been recorded, and only two formal witnesses had been examined even after charges were framed.

The Court found that the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future and that continued detention would effectively amount to pre-trial punishment, contrary to the presumption of innocence and Article 21.

The prosecutrix’s failure to appear before the trial court despite notice, although she appeared before the High Court, further demonstrated that the delay could not justify the petitioner’s indefinite incarceration.

Balancing the gravity of the allegations against the constitutional requirement of a speedy trial, the Court held that the petitioner had established a case for bail.

The bail was subject to conditions requiring him to attend the trial, cooperate with interrogation, refrain from tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and not leave India without prior permission of the court.

The Court clarified that misuse or violation of the bail conditions would entitle the investigating agency to seek cancellation of bail, and that the observations made were not findings on the merits of the prosecution case.