Bail is the rule and jail is the exception, emphasizing timely trial proceedings.

ORAL ORDER

1) RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-

State.

2) The present application is filed under Section 4 83 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (which shall hereinafter be referred to as “ BNSS ” for short) for successive regular bail after filing of the charge-sheet, in connection with FIR No.11198011240518 of 2024 registered with Gangajaliya Police Station, Bhavnagar for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f), 376(2)(n), 376(3), 506(1), 114 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4 , 6, 10 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (which shall hereinafter be referred to as “POCSO Act” for short).

3) Learned Advocate for the applicant has submitted that the applicant was arrested on 18.07.2024. Though specific order was passed on 18.12.2024, no substantial progress has not been made. Only two witnesses are examined out of total 46 witnesses. On the ground of delay without entering into merits he has requested to grant the bail. The applicant is having no past antecedents and he is the sole bread-winner of his family. Now the charge-sheet is filed and therefore the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.

4) Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed the present application and requested to dismiss the present application for regular bail on the ground that the offence against the applicant is serious in nature. She has further submitted earlier bail application of the applicant was dismissed and thereafter there is no change in circumstances. The petitioner is facing serious charges under the POCSO Act. Therefore, she has requested to dismiss the present application.

5) Having heard both the learned Advocates, at the outset the alleged incident took place before 5 years but herein victim is niece of the applicant and offence is serious but at the same time it is sorry state of affairs that though in December 2024 specific order was passed to expedite the trial and to examine the material witnesses. Though charge is framed on 20.11.2024, and passing of order by this Court vide order dated 18.12.2024 in Criminal Misc. Application No.21094 of 2024, after six months first witness was examined and thereafter in two months one witness was examined and thereafter no substantial progress is made in the trial.

6) I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the investigation papers.

Following main aspects have been considered:

(1) Investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed and now nothing is to be recovered or discovered form the applicant;

(2) Though specific direction was given to expedite the trial but only two witnesses have been examined out of total

46 witnesses;

(3) Applicant is behind the bars since 18.07.2024, and conclusion of trial would take its own time due to snail pace;

(4) The applicant is not having any past antecedent;

7) Further, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012]1 SCC 40 as well as in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1978)1 SCC 240. Obviously, the conclusion of trial will take time and keeping the accused behind the bars is nothing but amounts to pre-trial conviction and therefore, considering the celebrated principle of bail jurisprudence is that “bail is a rule and jail is exception” as well as the concept of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, present application deserves consideration. On the ground of inordinate delay reference is required to be made to the decision of the Ho