The court denied bail due to the serious nature of allegations and the materials against the petitioner, emphasizing the need for a swift trial.

JUDGMENT :

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has been made an accused in connection with Mango P.S. Case No. 366 of 2023, registered for the offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 6 & 8 of the POCSO Act, pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, POCSO Court, Jamshedpur.

3. As per F.I.R., allegation is that the petitioner has been establishing physical relationship with informant’s minor daughter for last three years. Whenever informant has asked the petitioner to either marry her daughter or break the relationship, petitioner used to establish physical relationship with her daughter and called her daughter outside the house anywhere to establish physical relationship. Family members of the petitioner have ruined the image of the informant in the society. When the informant has requested the petitioner to marry her daughter the petitioner has refused to do the same.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all rather he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that this is the second regular bail application of the petitioner and earlier his bail application being B.A. No.3434 of 2024 was rejected vide order dated 12.07.2024 on merits by this Court with observation that the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the case and conclude the same preferably within a period of six months otherwise the petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. It is further submitted that victim has made allegation against her stepfather and consequently who has also been sent to jail, recorded in her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 25.12.2023 without any rhymes and reasons. Petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the trial of the case by remaining physically present as and when required and shall not indulge in any manner in tampering with the prosecution evidences or influencing the witnesses of prosecution. Hence, the petitioner may be extended the privilege of bail.

5. On the other hand, learned Addl. P.P appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner and submitted that there is no fresh ground for entertaining the second bail application which is fit to be dismissed. Hence, petitioner may not be extended privilege of anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation coupled with the materials available against the petitioner and also in view of the fact that from the progress report submitted by concerned Trial Court, it appears that the trial is likely to be concluded within a period of four months. In this view of the matter, in the interest of smooth trial of the case, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of bail to the petitioner which stands rejected.

7. However, the learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial within four months from the date of receiving of this order and petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his bail application if trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period.