The right to speedy trial under Article 21 can justify bail due to inordinate delays, despite the serious nature of criminal charges.

Sandeep Sharma, J

1. Bail petitioner namely Sonu, who is behind bars since 4.9.2022, has approached this court in the instant proceedings filed under S. 483 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter, ‘ BNSS ’) for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 84, dated 3.9.2022 under Ss. 363, 366, 376 and 506 IPC and Ss.4 and 21 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, registered at Police Station Talai, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh.

2. Respondent-State has filed status report and Investigating Officer i.e. SI Rakesh Kumar, Police Station Talai, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh has come present with record. Record perused and returned.

3. In nutshell, prosecution case is that on 3.9.2022, father of victim-prosecutrix lodged a complaint with the police that his minor daughter XYZ has gone missing. He alleged that his minor daughter, aged 16 years, has not returned home since the evening of 2.9.2022 and he has apprehension that some unknown person has made her elope with him, as such, appropriate action in accordance with be taken. After receipt of aforesaid complaint, police lodged FIR, as detailed herein above and started investigation. Bail petitioner was arrested on 4.9.2022 and since then, he is behind the bars.

4. Since, in the investigation it transpired that the bail petitioner made minor daughter of the complainant elope with him, police after ascertaining mobile number of bail petitioner, started investigation and ultimately, recovered the victim-prosecutrix from Rajjowal, District Ludhiana. Victim-prosecutrix in her statements recorded under Ss. 161 and 164 CrPC, alleged that the bail petitioner made her elope with him and thereafter sexually assaulted her against her wishes. Police also got victim-prosecutrix medically examined and placed on record MLC No. 3899, perusal whereof reveals that victim-prosecutrix was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse. Since victim-prosecutrix, at the time of alleged commission of offence was minor, case under S. 366, 376, 506 IPC and S.4 and 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act came to be registered against bail petitioner. Since Challan stands filed in the competent court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, as such, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of bail, on the ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial.

5. While fairly acknowledging the factum of filing challan in the competent court of law, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General submits that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by the bail petitioner, he does not deserve leniency and his prayer for bail deserves outright rejection. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General states that evidence adduced on record clearly reveals that at the time of commission of offence, victim- prosecutrix was a minor but yet the bail petitioner, taking undue advantage her innocence and minority, not only made her elope with him but also sexually assaulted the victim-prosecutrix, against her wishes. Mr. Kahol states that since trial has commenced and statement of victim-prosecutrix stands recorded, coupled with fact that for recording the statements of remaining prosecution witnesses, matter has been fixed by the Court below during 21.10.2024 to 26.10.2024, prayer made on behalf of the bail petitioner for grant of bail, on the ground of delay in trial, deserves outright rejection. Mr. Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General further st