ORDER

1. The present petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is preferred by the petitioner/prosecutrix seeking early conclusion of trial and direction to respondent No.1 (S.H.O. Police Station Vidisha Dehat) to accompany the witnesses when they appear before the trial Court for deposition.

2. The sole prayer made by petitioner is early conclusion of case/trial pertaining to physical and sexual exploitation of the minor prosecutrix, registered vide Crime No.851/2019 for alleged offences under sections 376 (2) (n), 376 (2) (i), 354 (A) (1) (i) (ii), 354 (D), 120-B, 201 of IPC and Sections 3,4,5,6,13,14 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “the POCSO Act”) and sections 67,67(A),67(B), 66(D),66(E) of Information Technology Act. The conduct of accused is reflected from the fact that after 13 adjournments, cross-examination of prosecutrix could have been completed. Despite lapse of almost 4 years in such a heinous crime, at present only prosecutrix could have been cross-examined by the accused and still her family members remained to be cross-examined before the trial Court.

3. Respondent No.1/accused is adopting every tactics to delay the trial and to harass the petitioner/prosecutrix and her family members to give up the case and to come to his terms. Since accused was not cooperating in trial and continuously harassing the prosecutrix and her family members, therefore, application for cancellation of bail has been preferred.

4. Fundamental right of every citizen including the complainant and victim is to get justice without any delay; whereas, respondents are causing delay and thwarting the Principle of Speedy Trial and Right to Access Justice.

5. Hon'ble Supreme Court has expressed concern over the long pending trials. Therefore, respecting the spirit of Hon'ble Supreme court, it is imperative that trial be conducted and concluded at the earliest. He relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme court in the matter of Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1369 as 3 M.Cr.C.No.3314/2022 well as Hussain and Anr. Vs. Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 1362 and Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar, AIR 2017 SC 1079.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1/State admits that Fair Trial and Right to Access Justice is the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and therefore, appropriate order can be passed.

7. Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3 opposed the prayer with vehemence and submits that trial Court has sufficient means to handle the trial including Section 317 of Cr.P.C. and if the witnesses are not properly examined then it will adversely affect the prospect of respondents and it would be contrary to their fundamental rights. However, learned counsel for the accused fairly submits that accused was cooperating in trial by not seeking any adjournment and would cross-examine the prosecution witnesses at the earliest.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents brought on record by respective parties.

9. The case in hand pertains to heinous offence of rape with a minor girl and making her obscene photographs/videos viral on internet. Tenor and texture of the charges indicate the seriousness of the incident. Here, incident took place in 2019 and till now only prosecutrix and her father have been examined before the trial Court while other material prosecution witnesses/family members of prosecutrix are left to be examined.

10. From perusal of order-sheets of trial Court, it appears that accused used to cross-examine prosecution witnesses in post lunch session or thereafter so that cross-examination could not be completed on that day and witnesses would have to visit again. On exhausting 13 adjournments, prosecutrix/minor girl could have been examined by the accused. Section 35(1) and (2) of POCSO Act mandates recording of statement of child/prosecutrix within one month of cognizance and conclusion of