Failure to cooperate with the Trial Court and comply with mandatory completion timelines can impact the grant of bail, especially in cases governed by special enactments like the POCSO Act.

Headnote:
Sec. 439 - Regular Bail - The court rejected the petitioner's request for regular bail due to the petitioner's repeated failure to appear before the Trial Court and cooperate in completing the trial, especially considering the mandatory completion timeline under Sec. 35 of the POCSO Act.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought regular bail after not appearing before the Trial Court despite being granted bail earlier. The petitioner voluntarily surrendered and filed a fresh bail application, which was rejected.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner had not cooperated with the Trial Court, repeatedly failing to appear and causing delays in the trial, especially in a case governed by the mandatory completion timeline under Sec. 35 of the POCSO Act.
Issues: Failure to appear before the Trial Court, cooperation in completing the trial, and the applicability of the mandatory completion timeline under Sec. 35 of the POCSO Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner's lack of cooperation with the Trial Court and the mandatory completion timeline under Sec. 35 of the POCSO Act influenced the court's decision to reject the bail petition.
Final Decision: The petition for regular bail was rejected by the court.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition is filed under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner in Crime No.62/2016 of Women Police Station, Shivamogga District, for the offence punishable under Ss. 366A, 376(2), 114 read with Sec. 34 of IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that this petitioner was earlier granted bail and subsequently he did not appear before the Court. Hence, warrant was issued against him and also notice to surety was ordered and inspite of it, he did not appear before the Trial Court and subsequently he voluntarily surrendered before the Court and filed a fresh bail application and the same was rejected. Hence, the present petition is filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the bail was granted in the year 2016 and there are no serious charges against this petitioner and the only allegation against him is that he provided vehicle to accused No.1. The petitioner is regularly appearing before the Trial Court and accused No.1 was not appearing before the Court and hence the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that though bail was granted in the year 2016, periodically he has not appeared before the Court and on several times warrant was issued and the notices were also ordered and on number of occasions warrant was also recalled and even showed lenience in favour of this petitioner and during the course of the trial, either this petitioner or accused No.1 were not appearing before the Court and surety notice was also ordered and the Trial Court having considered the factual aspect rightly rejected the bail petition.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State and on perusal of the records, it discloses that this petitioner was not appearing before the Trial Court and NBW was issued and surety notice was also issued and surety also failed to appear before the Court and the bond executed by the surety of accused No.2 was also forfeited and separate criminal miscellaneous was also registered and proclamation was issued against accused Nos.1 and 2 on 22/10/2021 and thereafter only accused No.2 voluntarily appeared before the Court and he was remanded to judicial custody.

7. Having taken note of the factual aspects, though the case was registered in 2016, the matter was committed to the Sessions Court in 2017 and P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined on 27/11/2018 and the counsel prayed time and time was rejected and taken as nil. Subsequently, witness summons was issued and thereafter both the accused i.e., the petitioner as well as accused No.1 did not appear before the Court and NBW was issued and surety notice was also ordered and subsequently surety bond was forfeited and separate proceedings has been initiated and proclamation has been issued against this petitioner and only after the issuance of proclamation, this petitioner voluntarily appeared before the Court. Having taken note of the entire order sheet, in the beginning on several occasions, this petitioner has not appeared and even lenience was also shown in recalling the warrant and even notice was ordered on several occasion against this petitioner as well as notice against surety and it discloses that this petitioner is not cooperating with the Trial Court in completing the trial and the offences invoked against the petitioner and other accused is under the special enactment POCSO Act and under Sec. 35 of the POCSO Act, which is mandatory on the part of the Trial Court to complete the trial within one month from the date of commencement of trial. When such being the case, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner.

8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

Click Here to Read the rest of this document