The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 is crucial, yet the seriousness of charges can justify denying bail despite delays in proceedings.

ORDER : 

1. Heard Ms. S. Nongsiej, learned counsel for the petitioner who is the wife of the accused person, Shri. Thosterning Lyngdoh Nonglait. The learned counsel has submitted that the accused person in question was arrested on 12.03.2023 in connection with Diengpasoh P.S. Case No. 01(03) of 2023 under Section 5(g)/6 of the POCSO Act. The case in the meantime has been charge sheeted and has now proceeded for trial. Till date only one witness has been examined out of the 32 witnesses.

2. The learned counsel has also submitted that this is the second bail application preferred before this Court, the earlier one being disposed of vide order dated 12.06.2024. As has been the submission in the earlier bail application, the petitioner would stress on the fact that that in spite of the relevant provision of Section 35 of the POCSO Act which provides for speedy trial inasmuch as the trial court is mandated to complete the trial within a period of one year, however till date after more than one year, as has been submitted only one witness has been examined. Therefore the concept of speedy trial has been defeated as far as the case involving the accused person is concerned.

3. The learned counsel has also submitted that in the previous order dated 12.06.2024 noticing this aspect of the matter this Court has directed the trial court to frame the charges at the earliest and to commence with the actual trial which was done so. However, again, as has been submitted, till date only one witness has been examined. The witness though being the survivor was examined by the court only two and a half months ago. This being the case the right of the accused being deprived inasmuch as the cause for speedy trial being hampered even admitting that the charges are serious in nature nevertheless under the facts and circumstances of this case, the accused person in question is entitled to be granted bail.

4. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the accused person is the only bread earner of the family having his aged parents, a wife and a minor daughter to take care of and if not enlarged on bail their survival will be at stake.

5. As to the allegation that if enlarged on bail the accused person in question will indulged or rather will threaten the complainant or the accused, the learned counsel has submitted that the accused person in question is a resident of another district, that is, Eastern West Khasi Hills District and stays very far away from the residence of the complainant and the survivor. There is no question of threat whatsoever in this regard.

6. Coming back to the issue of speedy trial, the learned counsel has cited the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2787 of 2024 vide order dated 03.07.2024 at para 19 has observed as follows:

“19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime.”

7. The learned counsel has also cited the case of Bashanbha Syngkli v. State of Meghalaya wherein in BA No. 15 of 2024 vide order dated 31.05.2024 this Court in a similar case under the POCSO Act at para 7 has discussed the implication of Section 35 vis-à-vis speedy trial and has mandated that it is incumbent upon the trial court to complete the proceedings as far as possible within a period of one year.

8. It is therefore prayed that this petition may be allowed and the accused person may be enlarged on bail with any conditions that this Court may deem fit and proper to be imposed.

9. Per contra, Mr. R. Gurung, learned GA while opposing the bail application has impressed upon this Court