Full Text
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.2228 OF 2025
Nilesh Suryakant Netake …Applicant
Mr. Chaitanya Purankar, for the Applicant.
Mr. D. J. Haldankar, APP
, for the Respondent No.1-State.
Ms. Shanice Mansukhani, for the Respondent No.2.
Mr. Ajay Murlidhar Pataskar, Police Hawaldar, attached to Haveli
Police Station, Pune, present.
JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. Purankar, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant, Mr. Haldankar, learned APP appearing for the Respondent No.1-State and Ms. Mansukhani, learned Counsel appointed to represent the Respondent No.2.
2. This regular Bail Application is preferred under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) seeking that Applicant be enlarged on bail in connection with C.R. No.275 of 2021 dated 22nd December 2021 registered with the Haveli Police Station, Pune. The said FIR has been lodged alleging commission of the offence punishable under Sections 377 and 506(II) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) and under Sections 3, 4, 5(g), 6, 7, 8, 9(g), 10, 11(ii), 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”) and Section 67-B of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
3. It is the main contention of Mr. Purankar, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant that the Applicant was merely present when the incident took place and he has not played any role in the incident in question. He further submits that the Applicant has been arrested on 22nd December 2021 and till date there is no progress in the trial and therefore, the Applicant be enlarged on bail on the ground of long incarceration.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Haldankar, learned APP appearing for the Respondent No.1-State and Ms. Mansukhani, learned Counsel appointed to represent the Respondent No.2 strongly opposed the Bail Application. Both of them submitted that the material on record shows that the Applicant has played major role in the commission of crime and as the offence is very serious and heinous the Applicant be not enlarged on bail. Both of them submitted that as the victims, other witnesses and the accused are staying in the same vicinity, there is very high possibility of accused pressurizing the witnesses and therefore, the Applicant be not enlarged on bail.
5. At the outset, it is required to be noted that this is a second Bail Application and the first Bail Application bearing Bail Application No.3551 of 2023 was allowed to be withdrawn by order dated 11th March 2024 passed by this Court. In the said order dated 11th March 2024, it has been specifically observed that as this Court was not inclined to grant bail, the Applicant has withdrawn the Bail Application. Thus, in effect the first Bail Application has been dismissed on merits. However, as contentions are raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant even on merits the same are considered.
6. Before considering the merits, it is required to set out parameters inter alia required to be taken into consideration by the Court while considering prayer for grant of bail. The said parameters are as follows:a) Nature and gravity of circumstances in which offence was committed; b) Position and status of accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses; c) Likelihood of accused fleeing from justice; d) Likelihood of accused tampering with witnesses; e) History of the case as well as of its investigation. It is also a settled legal position that the Court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence at the stage of consideration of Bail Application.
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision of Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh[1] has held as follows:
8. If the present case is to be considered on the touchstone of the above parameters, then it is required to consider the material on record for considering prima facie case against the Applicant.
9. In the incident in question, there are two victims (Hereinafter those two victims are referred as “A” and “B”). The FIR has been lodged by the father of victim “A”. He has inter alia stated in the FIR as under: ßvkt fn- 21/12/2021 jksth jk=h 01:00 ok P;k lqekjkl ek>s ojhy jkgrs ?kjh iksyhl vkys o R;kauh eyk lgdkjuxj iksyhl LVs’ku] iq.ks;sFkqu vkY;kps lkaxqu eyk R;kapsdMhy vlysY;k eksckbZy e/khy,d fOgfMvks nk[kfoyk- rks fOgfMvks eh ikghyk vlrk R;ke/;s vkeP;k xkoke/khy ekÖ;k vksG[khph eqys ukes dq.kky jkts’k Hkkaxjs o fuys’k lq;Zdkar usVds gs ek>k eqyxk “A”;kps lkscr tcjnLrhus R;kl [kksyhr dksaMwu R;kph diMs dk<qu R;kpsoj vuSlfxZd laHkksx djr vlrkuk fnlys- Eg.kqu eh iksyhlkauk ekÖ;k eqyk’kh vls d`R; dj.kk&;k blekaoj dkjokbZ Ogkoh;kdfjrk ldkGh lgdkjuxj iksyhl LVs’kuyk;sowu rdzkj nsrks vls lkaxhrys-Þ (Emphasis added) English translation of the above is as under: “Today, on the date 21.12.2021, at or around 01:00 O’clock in the night, Police came to my aforesaid residential house and by telling me that they had come from Sahakar Nagar Police Station, Pune, showed me one video available in the mobile phone that they had in their possession. I saw that video. In the said video, I saw that Kunal Rajesh Bhangre and Nilesh Suryakant Netke, the boys from our village to whom I know, had forcibly detained my son by name “A” in one room, removed his clothes and had an unnatural sex with him. Therefore, in order that an action should be taken against those persons who had committed such an act with my son, I told the Police that I would come to Sahakar Nagar Police Station in the morning to lodge my complaint.”
10. The victim “A” in his statement recorded on 25th 2021 has stated as follows: ßfnokGhps osGh uDdh vkBor ukgh eh nqdkukr [kk;yk vk.kk;yk pkyyks gksrks- rsOgk eyk nkn;k ¼oSHko iokj½;kus tkM;k nkn;kP;k ¼bZ’oj f’kans½ ?kjkps f[kMdhrqu Hkks&;k bdMs;s vls Eg.kkyk- Eg.kqu eh tkM;k nkn;kP;k ¼bZ’oj½ P;k ?kjkr pIiy dk<qu xsyks- ?kjkr ‘kssafMokyk nknk ¼fuys’k usVds½] vkf.k ngkforys nksu nknk ¼oSHko iokj] vkse xk;dokM½ gs gksrs- gs loZ ekÖ;k leksj vkysoj eh vksG[k.kkj- tkM;k nknkus eyk ika<&;k [kqphZr cloys] eh cksyyks dkjs nknk dk; nqdkukr tk;p dk\ rks Eg.kyk uk;- “B” nknk vxksnjp ?kjkr gksrk- tkM;k nknk “B” yk Eg.kkyk rq diMs dk<\ ukghrj y; gkuhu rsOgk “B” us R;kph lxGh diMs dk<yh- ‘ksaMhoky;k nknkus ek>h lxGh diMs dk<yh- eh y; jMr gksrks- lksMuk nknk lksM Eg.kr gksrks- jMr gksrks y; eh] oSHko nknkus f[kMdh ykoyh] tkM;k nknkus “B”yk ek:u R;kph ‘kqph tkxk ekÖ;k ‘khP;k tkxsr ?kkyk;yk ykoyheh jMr gksrks eyk fdaphr nq[ky- rsOgk tkM;k nknkus Qksu d:u ofdy yodj;s] ofdy yodj;s vls Eg.kkyk Hkk&;k tkbZy] rsOgk ek>h diMs ?kkryh gksrh- Qksu dsY;koj ofdy nknk yxspp rsFks vkyk- R;kus eyk diMs dk<k;yk lkafxryh] eh diMs dk<yh ukgh] Eg.kqu ‘kssaMhokY;k nknkus ek>h diMs dk<yh- ‘ksafMokY;k nknkuh ek> Mksd R;kps ekaMhr tksjkr nkcqu /kjy] tkM;k nknku fOg-Mh-vks- pkyq dsyh] ek>k nkr ‘ksaMhokY;k nknkP;k ekaMhyk ykxyk] ofdy nknkus ek>h ‘khph tkxk ykac d:u R;kph ‘kqph tkxk Vkdyh- eyk ‘khP;k tkxsoj tksjkr nq[ky rjh R;ku Vkdypeh tksjkr vksjMyks Eg.kqu ‘ksaMhokY;k nknkus ekÖ;k rksaMkr ek>k Vh ‘kVZ dkascyk- eyk ‘okl ?ksrk;sbZuk rsOgk R;kauh eyk lksMy] Eg.kqu ‘ksaMhokY;k nknkus eyk lksMy o ijr ofdy nknkus ekÖ;k rksaMkr R;kph ‘kqph tkxk Vkdyh- R;kP;k ‘kqP;k tkxsrqu nksunk [kkyh ika<j ik.kh iMy- ofdy nknk eyk djr gksrks rsOgk “B” yk f[kMdhr Fkkacoy- uarj eyk tkM;k nknkuh diMs ?kkyk;yk ykoyh vkf.k “B”yk cksykoy- eh diMs ?kkryh tkM;k nknk eyk ?ksoqu ckFk:e/;s xsyk- eyk MksGs iqlk;yk ykoy] ckFk:ee/;s vkrqu dMh ?kkryh- CkkFk:ee/;s eh y; jMr gksrks- rsOgk tkM;k nknkuh R;kph ‘kqph tkxk ekÖ;k rksaMkr fnyh o ekxs iq<s dsy- e tkM;k nknku R;kp ika<j ik.kh [kkyh iMy- eyk myVh;sr gksrhngkohrY;k R;k nksu nknkauk eyk oMkiko vk.kk;yk ykoyk- ‘ksaMhokY;k nknku eyk vkf.k “B”yk ‘kstkjh ‘kstkjh cloy- ‘ksaMhokY;k nknku eyk dkBhu FkksM ek:u oMkiko [kk;yk ykoykoMkiko [kkoqu >kY;koj ‘ksaMhokY;k nknkus ekÖ;k f[k’kkr iS’ks Vkdys- gs dks.kkyk lkafxry rj rqEgkyk ekjhu] oM;kr Qsdqu nsbZy] Mqcoqu Vkdhu vls Eg.kkyk- e eh rqFkqu nqdkukr xsyks vkf.k rsFkqu ?kjh xsyk-Þ English translation of the said statement, reads as under: “I do not recollect the exact time, but it was the time of Diwali Festival. I was going to a shop to purchase something to eat. At that time, ‘Dadya’ (Vaibhav Pawar) called me from the window of the house of ‘Jadya Dadya’ (Ishwar Shinde), saying, “Bhorya, come here”. Therefore, I removed my footwear and entered the ‘Jadya Dadya’s’ (Ishwar) house. The ‘Shendiwala Dada’ (Nilesh Netke) and two ‘Dada’ (Vaibhav Pawar, Om Gaikwad), studying in tenth standard, were present there. I will identify all of them if they come before me. The ‘Jadya Dadya’ made me to sit in a white coloured chair. I said to him, “Dada, do you want me to go to a shop?”, to which he said “No”. “B” ‘Dada’ was already present there in the house. ‘Jadya Dada’ said to “B”, “you remove your clothes, otherwise I will beat you a lot”. Therefore, “B” removed all his clothes. The ‘Shendiwala Dada’ removed all my clothes. I was crying a lot and was requesting him, saying, “Leave, Dada, leave me”. I was crying a lot. Vaibhav ‘Dada’ closed the window. ‘Jadya Dada’ beat “B” and made him to insert his penis in my anus. I was crying. I suffered a little pain. At that time, ‘Jadya Dada’ made a telephone call and said, “Vakil, come early; Vakil, come early, Bharya will go”. At that time, I had worn my clothes. ‘Vakil Dada’ immediately came there on making a telephone call to him. He asked me to remove my clothes. However, as I did not remove my clothes, ‘Shendiwala Dada’ removed my clothes. The ‘Shendiwala Dada’ held my head tightly between his thighs. ‘Jadya Dada’ started a video. My tooth touched to the thigh of ‘Shendiwala Dada’. ‘Vakil Dada’ opened my anus wide and inserted his penis therein. Despite it hurt me a lot in my anus, he still inserted his penis. As I screamed loudly, ‘Shendiwala Dada’ stuffed my T-shirt in my mouth. When I could not breathe, they left me. Therefore, ‘‘Shendiwala Dada’ left me and thereafter, again, the ‘Vakil Dada’ inserted his penis in my mouth. Then, a white water fell from his penis twice. When the ‘Vakil Dada’ was committing the act with me, “B” was made to stand near the window. Thereafter, ‘Jadya Dada’ asked me to wear my clothes and called “B”. After I wore my clothes, ‘Jadya Dada’ took me to the bathroom, asked me to wipe my eyes and bolted the bathroom from inside. I was crying a lot in the bathroom. At that time, the ‘Jadya Dada’ inserted his penis in my mouth and he moved himself back and forth. Then ‘Jadya Dada’ released his white water down. I had a vomiting sensation. The two ‘Dada’ who were studying in tenth standard were asked to go and bring ‘Vada-Pav’ for me. The ‘Shendiwala Dada’ made me and the “B” sit next to each other. The ‘Shendiwala Dada’ beat me a little with a stick and made me have a ‘Vada- Pav’. After I ate the ‘Vada-Pav’, the ‘Shendiwala Dada’ put some money in my pocket and threatened me saying, “if you tell this to anyone, I will thrash you, I will throw you into the stream, I will drown you”. Then, from there, I went to a shop and from there to my home.”
11. The victim “B” in his statement recorded on 25th 2021 has stated as follows: ßfnokGhps osGh uDdh vkBor ukgh eh ek>s ?kjkps ekxs ek>k fe= vkse dqj.ks R;kps ?kjkpk LYkWc ikgk;yk xsyks gksrk- ¼eh dks.kkP;k lkscr rsFks xsys gs eyk vkrk vkBor ukgh-½ rsFks vkeps xkaokrhy ek>s vksG[khpk fuys’k usVds rsFks vkyk- R;kus ek>k gkr /k:u eyk bZ’ojP;k ?kjh ?ksoqu xsyk- rsFks bZ’oj] dq.kky Hkkaxjs ¼odhy½ gksrs- rs nks?kst.k rsFks clys gksrs- R;kosGh “A”s jLR;kus R;kps ?kjh pkyyk gksrk- rsOgk dks.khrjh R;kyk gkd ek:u bZ’ojP;k ?kjkr cksyoqu ?ksrys- R;kuarj dks.khrjh gkrkr dkBh ?ksryh o R;kauh eyk o “A” yk vkeph iWUV dk<k;yk ykoyh- dq.kky eyk Eg.kkyk rq>k cqYyk “A” kP;k xkaMhr Vkd- ukghrj rqyk [kqi ekjhu Eg.kqu eh dq.kky lkaxsy rl dsy- rsOgk bZ’oj o fuys’k csMoj clys gksrs- rsOgk bZ’oj gkrkr eksckbZy ?ksoqu dkghrjh djr gksrk- R;kuarj R;kauh eyk iWUV ?kkyk;yk ykoyh- R;kuarj dq.kky ¼odhy½ us R;kph iWUV dk<yh o R;kph ‘kqph tkxk R;kP;k ‘khP;k tkxsr ? kkyk;yk ykxyk rsOgk “A” tksjkr vksjMr vkf.k jMr gksrk- FkksM;kosGkus bZ’oj] dq.kky o fuys’k us “A” yk o diMs ?kkyk;yk ykoyh- R;kauh vkEgkyk bFk dk; >ky gs dks.kkyk lkafxrya rj rqEgkyk ekjhu vls Eg.kkys o vkEgkyk rsFkqu ?kjh tk Eg.kkys- eh o “A” rsFkqu fu?kqu xsyks-Þ English translation of the said statement, reads as under: “I do not recollect the exact time, but it was the time of the Diwali festival. I had gone to my friend Om Kurane’s house located on the rear side of my house, to see the slab of his house. (Now, I do not recollect as to with whom I had gone there). Nilesh Netke, my acquaintance from our village, came there. He held my hand and took me to Ishwar’s house. Ishwar and Kunal Bhangre (Vakil) were present there. They both had sat there. At that time, “A” was passing by the road to his house. At that time, somebody called him and asked him to come to Ishwar’s house. Thereafter, somebody took a stick in his hand and asked ‘A’ and me to remove our pants. Kunal said to me, “Insert your penis in ‘A’s’ anus or else I will beat you a lot”. Therefore, I did as to what Kunal asked me to do. At that time, Ishwar and Nilesh had sat on a bed. At that time, Ishawar had a mobile phone in his hand and he was doing something therein. Thereafter, they asked me to wear my pant. Thereafter, Kunal (Vakil) removed his pants and started inserting his penis in his (A’s) anus. At that time, “A” was screaming and crying badly. After sometime, Ishwar, Kunal and Nilesh asked “A” and (me) to wear our clothes and threatened us saying, “if you tell anybody about what has happened here, we will thrash you” and further asked us to go to our houses. Then, “A” and I went away from the said place.”
12. Father of victim “A” in his statement has stated that accused No.1-Kunal Rajesh Bhangre is called as “Vakil Dada”, accused No.2- Nilesh Suryakant Netake i.e. present Applicant is called as “Shendiwala Dada” and accused No.3-Ishwar Ashok Shinde is called as “Jadya Dada”.
13. Ms. Mansukhani, learned Counsel appointed to represent the interest of the Respondent No.2 in her written note tendered in Court has stated about the role of the Applicant on the basis of material on record as under: “That the allegations against the present Applicant are four-fold and establish his direct and active involvement in the commission of the offence. Firstly, the present Applicant forcibly brought the minor victim to the premises where the incident took place. Secondly, he coerced the victim into removing his clothes through threats and intimidation. Thirdly, he physically pushed the victim's head onto his own lap during the commission of the sexual offence by the co-accused so as to physically restrain his movement. Fourthly, he remained present and actively complicit throughout the incident and did nothing to prevent the assault. These acts, taken together, clearly establish the present Applicant's role in facilitating and participating in the commission of the offence with the other accused persons. That the statements as set out in the Chargesheet, as well as those made by the minor victim boys, have been corroborated by a video recording of the same, which has been duly submitted and brought on record before this Hon'ble Court in compliance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. In addition to the allegations mentioned in the witness statements, the video recording of the incident clearly shows that the present held down the head of the minor victim while he was being sexually assaulted by the co-accused.” The said contention raised is on the basis of material on record.
14. Thus, the evidence on record prima facie shows that the present Applicant forcibly brought the minor victims to the place where the incident took place. He threatened the victims and forced them to remove their clothes, compelled the victims to do the act and physically restrained them. The material on record further prima facie shows that the Applicant has actively participated in the incident in question. The offence in question is very serious and heinous, where victims-boys aged 12 and 14 years have been sexually assaulted and subjected to gang rape. The medical report also supports the prosecution case. The incident has been videographed by the accused No.3. The said video recording also shows that the Applicant is involved in the crime. This is a serious case where three accused have sexually assaulted the minor boys. Thus, as set out herein above, no case is made out for grant of bail on merits.
15. As noted herein above, this Court by order dated 11th March 2024 allowed the withdrawal of the Bail Application No.3551 of 2023 with liberty to file fresh Bail Application after a period of one year, if there is no substantial progress in the trial.
16. As far as accused No.3-Ishwar Ashok Shinde is concerned, a learned Single Judge by order dated 5th March 2025 allowed the withdrawal of the Bail Application No.3307 of 2024 with liberty to file Bail Application after nine months, if the trial is not concluded by that time.
17. It is the further submission of Mr. Purankar, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant that the Applicant is entitled to be released on bail in view of long incarceration. It is true that there is no progress in the trial and even the charge is also not framed. It is also true that the Applicant is incarcerated since 22nd
2021. However, the material on record prima facie shows the involvement of the Applicant in the crime. The offence in question is very serious and heinous, where victims-boys aged 12 and 14 years have been sexually assaulted and subjected to gang rape. The offences involved inter alia are under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, wherein minimum punishment is of 20 years if penetrative sexual assault is committed on the child below sixteen years of age and maximum punishment is life imprisonment. The offence is also inter alia under Sections 5(g) read with Section 6 of POCSO Act. The offence under Section 5(g) is an aggravated penetrative sexual assault where the child is subjected to gang penetrative sexual assault and punishment for said offence is rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of natural life of that person and shall also be liable to fine, or with death.
18. As far as long incarceration is concerned, Section 436A of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is relevant, which reads as under:- “[436-A. Maximum period for which an undertrial prisoner can be detained.—Where a person has, during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial under this Code of an offence under any law (not being an offence for which the punishment of death has been specified as one of the punishments under that law) undergone detention for a period extending up to one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offence under that law, he shall be released by the Court on his personal bond with or without sureties: Provided that the Court may, after hearing the Public Prosecutor and for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order the continued detention of such person for a period longer than one-half of the said period or release him on bail instead of the personal bond with or without sureties: Provided further that no such person shall in any case be detained during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial for more than the maximum period of imprisonment provided for the said offence under that law. Explanation.—In computing the period of detention under this section for granting bail, the period of detention passed due to delay in proceeding caused by the accused shall be excluded.]”
19. Before understanding the scope of Section 436A of CrPC, it is necessary to set out the statement of objects and reasons behind enactment of Section 436-A CrPC which reads as under: “There had been instances, where undertrial prisoners were detained in jail for periods beyond the maximum period of imprisonment provided for the alleged offence. As remedial measure Section 436-A has been inserted to provide that where an undertrial prisoner other than the one accused of an offence for which death has been prescribed as one of the punishments, has been under detention for a period extending to one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment provided for the alleged offence, he should be released on his personal bond, with or without sureties. It has also been provided that in no case will an undertrial prisoner be detained beyond the maximum period of imprisonment for which he can be convicted for the alleged offence.””
20. The Supreme Court in the case of Hussainara Khatoon (IV) vs. Hone Secy, State of Bihar[2], held that the right to speedy trial is a fundamental right of an undertrial prisoner and is a part of right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In fact Section 436A of CrPC have been enacted to ensure protection of said fundamental right of the undertrial prisoner. Therefore, it has been provided that if the undertrial prisoner has completed one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for such offence, then he shall be released on bail.
21. In the case of Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary vs. Union of India[3], the Supreme Court in the context of the offence under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”) has discussed the scope of Section 436-A of CrPC. The following observations in Paragraph No.324 are relevant.
324. Section 436-A of the 1973 Code, is a wholesome beneficial provision, which is for effectuating the right of speedy trial guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution and which merely specifies the outer limits within which the trial is expected to be concluded, failing which, the accused ought not to be
3 (2022) SCC OnLine SC 929 detained further. Indeed, Section 436-A of the 1973 Code also contemplates that the relief under this provision cannot be granted mechanically. It is still within the discretion of the court, unlike the default bail under Section 167 of the 1973 Code. Under Section 436-A of the 1973 Code, however, the court is required to consider the relief on case-to-case basis. As the proviso therein itself recognises that, in a given case, the detention can be continued by the court even longer than one-half of the period, for which, reasons are to be recorded by it in writing and also by imposing such terms and conditions so as to ensure that after release, the accused makes himself/herself available for expeditious completion of the trial. Thus, in view of the above position of law as the offence is very serious and heinous and there is likelihood of the Applicant bringing pressure on the witnesses and as minimum punishment which can be imposed on the Applicant, if convicted, is 20 years, no case is made out for grant of benefit under Section 436A of CrPC.
22. However, in the facts and circumstances, it is necessary that the trial is to be concluded expeditiously. At this stage, it is significant to note that when this Court wanted to issue directions to the learned Trial Court to expedite the trial, Mr. Purankar, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rup Bahadur Magar @ Sanki @ Rabin vs. State of West Bengal 4 and submitted that the Supreme Court has held that High Court should not issue such type of directions.
23. However, the said order in the case of Rup Bahadur Magar @ Sanki @ Rabin (supra) relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of U.P. & Ors.5, wherein the Supreme Court has held that in the ordinary course the High Courts are passing the orders directing disposal of trials within a time bound manner. Apart from the fact that such directions are contrary to the law laid down by the Constitution Bench, such orders put undue pressure on the Trial Courts which are already flooded with a lot of work. Unless the factual situation is extra ordinary and exceptional, the High Courts cannot pass such order of time bound disposal of the case.
24. However, this is a case where prima face, the Applicant and other co-accused are involved in very serious and heinous crime. The offence is inter alia under the POCSO Act. The victim boys of 12 years and 14 years are subjected to sexual assault and gang rape. Even in said case of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad (supra), the Supreme Court has stated that in exceptional circumstances, directions can be issued for time bound disposal of the case. This is a case where the Applicant is involved in very serious crime and is taking contention that this Court should not expedite the trial. In fact, earlier Bail Application has been allowed to be withdrawn by this Court by order dated 11th March 2024 passed in Bail Application No.3551 of 2023. Thus, it is very clear that even the Applicant’s earlier Bail Application was allowed to be withdrawn as no case was made out to allow the Bail Application on merits. The only contention which can be raised by the Applicant is long incarceration.
25. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is inclined to direct time bound disposal of the Sessions Case and at that time the Applicant is contending that no such direction be issued. Thus, the said contention clearly shows that the Applicant is not interested in time bound disposal of the trial and interested in delaying the trial so that he can take advantage of the same and seek bail on the ground of long incarceration.
26. However, in the facts and circumstances, as the children of 12 years and 14 years are subjected to gang rape, the learned Trial Court is requested to make endeavour to conclude the trial within a period of one year from today.
27. The State of Maharashtra to ensure that the accused should either be produced physically or through Video Conferencing before the learned Trial Court on each and every date of the trial.
28. Learned Public Prosecutor who is conducting the case shall take expeditious steps for examination of the witnesses.
29. Accordingly, the Bail Application is dismissed. [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]