6.5. In the result, all the Sessions Judges/Assistant Sessions Judgesin the State including Union Territories are directed to frame charge against the under trial prisoners as early as possible and not beyond the period of six months from the date of filing of the chargesheet. They shall not wait for draft charge from the office of the Public Prosecutor. The Sessions Judges/Assistant Sessions Judges are at liberty to pass specific orders, if there is/are dilatory tactics on the part of the under trial prisoner to prolong the stage of framing of charge.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1575 OF 2024
Vijay Rajendra Bhosale Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATED : 17 th OCTOBER, 2024.
1. By this application, applicant is seeking regular bail in Crime
No. 1050 of 2020 registered with Samarth Police Station, Pune under
Section 377, 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) and under Sections
3-A, 4, 5(1), 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012 ( for short “POCSO Act”).
2. It is prosecution's case that on 25.10.2020 applicant took the
victim to his office under pretext of giving him job and committed
unnatural sex with him. Thereafter applicant gave Rs.200/- to the victim
and told him not to disclose the incident to anyone. It is alleged that on
28.10.2020 again applicant took the victim to his house and told him that
if he was in need of money he would give him money. The victim boy was
in tension due to act done by the applicant he narrated the incident to his
parents. Thereafter complaint was lodged against the applicant under the
above referred sections.
3. It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that
applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant is behind bar
for more than 4 years. No charge is framed. It may take time to conclude
the trial. Applicant is karta of his family. The informant i.e. mother of the
victim had filed application before the Special Court stating that she has no
objection to allow the bail application of the applicant as she had filed
complaint against the applicant under wake of anger but this fact is not
considered by Special Court, hence requested to allow the application.
4. It is contention of learned APP and learned counsel for
respondent No.2 that applicant has committed unnatural sex with the
victim boy who was 15 years old at the time of incident, thereafter
applicant told him not to disclose the said incident to anyone. There is
prima facie case against the applicant. If applicant is released on bail he
may threaten the victim boy and his parents and he may abscond hence,
requested to reject the application.
5. I have heard all the learned counsel. Perused the chargesheet
produced on record. Applicant is behind the bar for more than four years.
Yet charge has not been framed against him. When this Court enquired
with the learned APP why charge is not framed and called the roznama of
the learned Special Judge.
6. Before I comment on merit of this bail application, it would be
just and proper to take note of pathetic situation of the under- trial
prisoners. The present application is one of such example, which
necessitates this Court to take note of the same. The Applicant is
languishing in jail for more than four years. The case is of sole accused. It
is admitted position that the charge is not framed. It depicts from the
Roznama that on 66 dates the criminal case was fixed for framing charge
by the trial court is not only disturbing factor to this court but the entire
Judicial institution.
6.1. The technology is developed to such an extent that the charge
can be framed even through virtual hearing. The Apex Court time and
again impressed upon the Judicial Officers to make effective use of the
technology.
6.2. The record nowhere indicates that due to dilatory tactics
adopted by the accused, the Court was unable to frame charge. This Court
is aware that the Trial Courts are burdened with the cases. However, it
does not mean to adjourn the case only to frame the charge on 66
occasions. It transpires from the record, more precisely, Roznama that the case was adjourned on account of draft charge is not furnished by the prosecution. The provisions under Code of Criminal Procedure nowhere mandates the prosecution to submit a draft charge. The learned Public
Prosecutor has also failed to point out any provision either in the Code of
Criminal Procedure or Criminal manual that without supplying the draft
charge, court cannot proceed with framing of charge. The framing of
charge is one of the crucial function to be discharged by the presiding
Judge. The Presiding Judge needs to take into consideration the entire
charge sheet and then to frame charges precisely.
The Section 226 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as
follows: -
"226. Opening case for prosecution: accused appears When the or
is brought before the Court in pursuance of a commitment of the
case under section 209, the prosecutor shall open his case by
describing the charge brought against the accused and stating by
what evidence he proposes to prove the guilt of the accused."
This section simply provides that the prosecutor shall open his
case by describing the charge brought against the accused and stating by
what evidence he proposes to prove the guilt of the accused. This provision
is within an object to assist the Court about the material placed record by
the prosecution. This provision nowhere states that it is mandatory upon
the prosecutor to supply the draft charge to the Presiding Judge.
6.3. It is settled that speedy justice is a part of Fundamental Right
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, all litigation must
come to an end at the earliest.
The Apex Court in Hussainara Khatoon and Others Vs. State of
Bihar [AIR 1979 SC 360] held that any procedure which does not ensure a
reasonable quick trial cannot be regarded as fair and just and it would fall
foul of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, speedy trial which
mean reasonable expeditious trial is an integral and essential part of the
fundamental right of life and liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
A three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in Bal Krishna
Vidur Vs. State of U. P. [(2003) 12 SCC 186] held that delay in framing of
charge is negation of principles of speedy trial and courts should not be
casual in dealing with such cases and keep them pending for long periods,
while the accused languishing in custody.
6.4. Having regard to the factual position, i.e., pathetic situation of
the under trial prisoners coupled with legal position laid down by the Apex
Court, this Court is of the opinion that it is necessary to issue certain
directions to all the Trial Courts, more precisely, Session Courts dealing
with the cases of under trial prisoners to keep in mind the legal position
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hussainara Khatoon and Bal
Krishna Pandey alias Vidur (Supra).
There is need of periodical supervision by the Principal District
and Session Judges. It is advisable that the Principal District Judges shall
call the statement from the Courts dealing with the criminal cases as to in
how many cases of under trial prisoners, the charge is not framed within
six months from the date of filing of the chargesheet.
6.5. In the result, all the Sessions Judges/Assistant Sessions Judgesin the State including Union Territories are directed to frame charge against the under trial prisoners as early as possible and not beyond the period of six months from the date of filing of the chargesheet. They shall not wait for draft charge from the office of the Public Prosecutor. The Sessions Judges/Assistant Sessions Judges are at liberty to pass specific orders, if there is/are dilatory tactics on the part of the under trial prisoner to prolong the stage of framing of charge.
6.6. The Principal District and Sessions Judge shall call report on the
above lines after every three months and if it is noticed that despite filing
of the chargesheet, charge is not framed for the period of six months, then
issue necessary directions. These directions are basically issued in respect
of under trial prisoners.
6.7. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to circulate copy of this
order to all the Principal District and Sessions Judges with a request to
6/8
::: Uploaded on - 25/10/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2024 19:24:07 :::
S.S.Kilaje 902-BA-1575-24.doc
circulate the same amongst all the Judges under their control/jurisdiction
and impress upon them to comply with directions.
As far as present application is concerned, the Registrar
(Judicial) shall call report from the concerned Judge for delay in framing
of charges.
7. Coming to the merit of this application, applicant is behind bar
for more than four years. Investigation is completed. Chargesheet has
been filed. The informant, mother of victim has filed application before
the Special Court stating that she had filed complaint against the applicant
in wake of anger. The applicant is karta of his family. It may take time to
conclude the trial. Considering these facts, further detention of the
applicant is not required and I pass following order:
ORDER
(i) The applicant be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 1050 of
2020 registered with Samarth Police Station, Pune on
furnishing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or
two sureties in the like amount;
(ii) Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to
influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any
person concerned with the case.
(iii) Applicant shall inform his latest place of residence and
mobile number immediately after being released and/or
change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to
time to the Investigating Officer.
(iv) Applicant shall not leave country without permission.
8. The Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is
accordingly disposed off.
9. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
( SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
No comments:
Post a Comment