Inordinate trial delay in serious child sexual offence case violates Article 21 speedy trial right, entitling regular bail despite gravity if no tampering risk and conditions imposed.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 2 of 2024, dated 2.2.2024, registered at Women Police Station, Kullu, District Kullu, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the victim is aged 16 years and she is studying in class 10th. She was found missing on 27.1.2024. The efforts to trace her were unsuccessful. The matter was reported to the police. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The victim’s date of birth was found to be 6.1.2008, and she was aged 16 years on the date of the incident. The police checked the call detail record and found that the victim was in touch with the petitioner. The location of the victim and the petitioner was found to be at Kapurthala. The police recovered the victim on 16.2.2024. She made a statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that the petitioner had kidnapped her. She resided with the petitioner from 27.1.2024 till 16.2.2024. The petitioner had engaged in sexual intercourse with her multiple times during this period. The victim refused to undergo a medical examination. The prosecution’s evidence has not started yet. The investigation is complete, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner does not have any criminal history, and he would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence the petition.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant was found missing on 27.1.2024. Her father could not find her. He reported the matter to the police. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. The birth certificate of the victim shows that she was born on 6.1.2008. The police obtained the call detail record of the victim’s mobile phone and found that she was in touch with the petitioner. Their location was found to be at Kapurthala. The police went to Kapurthala and recovered the victim. The victim made a statement that she had accompanied the petitioner on 27.1.2024 and had resided with him till 16.2.2024. The petitioner had maintained physical relations with her many times during this duration. The victim was sent for her medical examination, but she declined to undergo her internal examination. The police also recovered the bus ticket from the petitioner. The petitioner was sent for his medical examination, and as per the Medical Officer, there was nothing to suggest that the petitioner was incapable of performing sexual intercourse. The victim made a statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate in which she stated that the petitioner had taken her with him and had maintained physical relations with her multiple times. The case property and samples were sent to the FSL, but no human semen was detected. The prosecution has cited 17 witnesses, but no witness has been examined so far. The petitioner would indulge in the commission of a similar offence and would intimidate the witnesses if released on bail. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

4. I have heard Mr Paras Dhaulta, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advoc