Inordinate trial delay due to prosecution's witness non-production constitutes change in circumstances for successive bail, violating Article 21 speedy trial right and entitling release despite offence gravity.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. 43 of 2023, dated 02.11.2023, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 376-D of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) at Women Police Station (WPS), Solan, District Solan, H.P.)

2. It has been asserted that the victim made a complaint to the police that she was going to meet her godbrother ‘A’ at Kurali on 31.10.2023. She had insufficient money, and she called her godbrother from Solan from the phone of Akshay. He sent the money to Akshay’s mobile phone. He took her to his brother, Sunny, by saying that he (Akshay) did not have sufficient cash with him. Juice was offered to the victim, and she became unconscious after consuming it. She regained consciousness in the morning and found that her private parts had a pain. She took money from Akshay’s brother and went to her godbrother’s house. She narrated the incident to the police. The police registered the F.I.R., investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet after the completion of the investigation. The prosecution has cited 24 witnesses, out of whom 11 have been examined. The matter was listed on 17.10.2025. There is no likelihood of an early conclusion of the trial. The petitioner’s right to a speedy trial is being violated. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the present petition.

3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the victim made a complaint to the police stating that she was going to Kurali on 31.10.2023. She did not have sufficient money. She called her brother and asked him to send money. He sent the money to the mobile of Akshay. Akshay stated that he did not have cash with him and took her to the shop of his brother, whom he called Sunny. They offered a glass of juice to the victim. She became unconscious. She was taken to a room where the accused again administered a glass of juice to her, and she became unconscious. She regained consciousness and found an injury on her neck and pain in her private parts. She was made to board a bus. She narrated the incident to her brother, who called her father. The matter was reported to the police. The police conducted the investigation and got the victim medically examined. The police arrested the accused and subjected them to a medical examination. The victim was born on 28.09.2006 and was a minor on the date of the incident. The result of the analysis shows that no semen was detected in the samples collected by the Medical Officer; hence, the DNA profile was not conducted. The Medical Officer stated that there was nothing to suggest that sexual intercourse had not taken place. The challan was prepared and presented before the Court. The statement of the victim was recorded on 15.06.2024. The matter was listed for proper order before the learned POCSO Court, Solan, on 17.10.2025. Hence, the status report.

4. I have heard Mr O.C. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

5. Mr O.C. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The petitioner was arrested on 13.11.2023. The prosecution has failed to complete the evidence despite the lapse of nearly two years. There is a statutory mandate to conclude it within one year, and