Bombay High Court: Bharati Dangre, J. while hearing a bail application of a man accused of raping and impregnating a 14-year-old in 2016 citing eight-year delay in trial perused the report on the pending cases of POCSO submitted by the Principal Judge. As per the said Report, there were 7 designated POCSO Courts in the City Civil Court (main branch) and six POCSO Courts at Dindoshi, out of which two courts were vacant.
By the perusal of the report, it was clear that the Special Courts are also under severe pressure of concluding the trials and therefore it is not uncommon as far as this case is concerned that the trial is not yet concluded. The Court noted a startling feature that allotment of 1228 cases with CR No.11 and 1070 cases with CR No.12. In contrast, CR No.9 is shown to have 138 cases and CR No.10 is having 116 cases. The disparity in the distribution of cases was not understood by the Court and the Principal Judge was asked to explain the same.
In relation to the two vacant posts, the Principal Judge was directed to apprise this Court about steps taken to fill up the vacant posts so that necessary directions can be issued for designated two courts for expeditious disposal of the cases, figure of which is alarming and the accused like present applicant are waiting for trial to be concluded since so many years. Also, Principal Judge was asked to give bifurcation of the years from which the cases were pending so that the reasons thereof can be ascertained and direction can be issued by this Court so that trials could be expedited.
Further, the Court opined that necessary directions are required to be issued to the Magistrates in connection with recording statement of victim immediately, as the delay at times, change the course of the trial. Principal Judge was directed to submit further report and analyze causes for delay in concluding the POCSO cases and why concerned courts are unable to adhere to the mandate, provided under the special statute keeping in mind objective underlining the same being less inconvenience and humiliation to be faced by the victim and by ensuring speedy trial.
In relation to the instant case, the Court directed the concerned Court to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible and in any case not less than 6 months and if the trial was not concluded within six months as directed, the Applicant is at liberty to request for release on bail on the ground of long pendency of the case.
Further matter to be heard on 29-08-2022.
[Azaruddin Nihaluddin Mirsilkar v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1627, decided on 01-08-2022]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr B.B. Tiwari with Azim Kazi and Aaisha F., Advocates, for the Applicant;
Smt Rutuja Ambekar, APP, Advocate, for the State.
*Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.
