Disposed

Pintu @ Akhilesh v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others

Allahabad HC26 Sept 2024BAIL/4595/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application for an accused in a POCSO case, the Court noted the trial's delay and the prosecutrix's condition. The Court directed the Trial Court to examine all witnesses within two months to expedite the trial as mandated by Section 35(2) of the POCSO Act.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Trial Court to examine witnesses within two months.

Pintu @ Akhilesh vs the State of U.P. Thru… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4595 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Pintu @ Akhilesh Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dharm Trivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶5

Supplementary counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Dharm Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Arun Kumar Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

No one has appeared has appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2.

¶8

This is a case where the present applicant is in jail since 06.10.2021 in Case Crime No. 277/2021, under Sections 376AB IPC & Section 5k, 5m, 6 of POCSO Act, Police StationFardhan, District- Kheri. It is stated that till date only two witnesses- (i) the informant and (ii) the prosecutrix have been examined. Since the prosecutrix is deaf and dumb, she could not be examined with the help of special teacher, therefore, the evidence of other fact/ relevant witnesses would be required.

¶9

Notably, as per Section 35(2) of the POCSO Act, the trial in POCSO cases should be concluded within a period of one year but substantial period has passed but the pace of the trial of the present case is very slow. In this case, the prosecutrix is not only deaf and dumb but was only 9 years old at the time of incident, therefore, the learned Trial Court must take extra efforts to conclude the trial with expedition.

¶10

Accordingly, the Trial Court concerned is directed to examine the fact/ relevant witnesses as well as expert witness within a period of two months by fixing short dates, if possible, on dayto-day basis, without giving any unnecessary adjournment to any of the witnesses and if any witness, be it prosecution witness or defence witness, do not co-operate in the trial proceedings, appropriate coercive steps may be taken to ensure that the evidence of aforesaid witness be recorded within the time stipulated.

¶11

List this case on 06.01.2025.

¶12

By the next date of listing, the Trial Court concerned shall apprise this Court about the status of the trial by a reasoned and speaking information so that the actual progress of the trial can be understood.

¶13

Let a copy of this order by provided to the Trial Court concerned through District and Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri by the Registry of this Court within three working days from today.

¶14

A copy of this order shall also be provided to the Superintendent of Police, Lakhimpur Kheri by the Registry of this Court for taking appropriate steps, ensuring the presence of the witnesses.

¶15

(Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.)

¶16

Order Date :- 22.10.2024 (Manoj K.)

¶17

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pintu @ Akhilesh v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pintu @ Akhilesh v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Deshraj Singh Vs Dr. Vijay Bahadur Dwivedi Director Horticulture and Food Processing Lko.

Suarbhi Singh Vs Dr. M.K. Shanmuga Sundram, Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. and Others

Bedram Sharma and Another Vs Ravindra Kumar, Inspector / I.O., C.B.I. / AC-1, New Delhi and Others

Suresh Prasad Gupta vs Sandeep Kumar, the Chief Engineer U.P. Jal Nigam (Rural), Lko.

Malguram Nishad @ Malgu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Manish Kumar Yadav vs Sanjay Singhal, Addl. Director General of Police (Establishment /Karmik) Lko.