Radheshyam Ramasare Gupta vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2025)

Radheshyam Ramasare Gupta vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim directions only; final decision on bail deferred. Notice to Respondent No.3 with humdast permitted; Applicant to serve copy of order and Application on the Investigating Officer directly; Investigating Officer to depute a responsible lady Police Officer to serve copy on Respondent No.3 and obtain her consent to legal-aid representation, to be apprised on the next adjourned date through the learned APP; compliance within one week; APP to apprise trial status on next date; matter stood over to 03rd April, 2025 under caption 'For Directions', to be placed for further directions and final hearing in view of long incarceration pending trial.

Issue for consideration

Whether bail should be granted to the Applicant, Radheshyam Ramasare Gupta, indicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 4, 6 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, who has been in custody for 5 years 7 months 3 days pending trial with charge not framed; final consideration of the Application was deferred by this order. +1 more

Court's answer

Notice to be issued to Respondent No.3 with humdast permitted; in addition to the Court's notice, the Applicant is directed to serve a copy of the order and a copy of the Application on the Investigating Officer directly.

Ratio / Principle

The Investigating Officer is directed to depute a responsible lady Police Officer to serve copy on Respondent No.3 and obtain her consent as to whether she requires legal representation through legal aid; the consent of Respondent No.3 is to be apprised to the Court on the next adjourned date through the learned APP.

Key takeaways

General criterion stated in passing: the Court can direct the Trial Court for expedition of trial in a given case provided there is some movement in the matter being heard by the Trial Court and on the part of the prosecution.obiter¶23
Finding on the present record: for the past 5 years 7 months the charge has not been framed and the trial is at a standstill.ratio¶23
The directions issued today are to be complied with by the learned Advocate for the Applicant within a period of one week from today.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction — Bail Application No. 1237 of 2025, Radheshyam Ramasare Gupta v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Milind N. Jadhav, J., 27 March 2025. Interim order on a bail application by an accused indicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 4, 6 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, in custody for 5 years 7 months 3 days pending trial, charge not framed, trial at a standstill. Court issued notice to the private Respondent No.3 (humdast permitted), directed the Applicant to serve a copy of the order and Application on the Investigating Officer directly, and directed the Investigating Officer to depute a responsible lady Police Officer to obtain Respondent No.3's consent as to legal-aid representation, to be reported on the next date through the APP. Observing that expedition of trial can be directed only where there is movement before the Trial Court and on the part of the prosecution, and finding the trial at a standstill, the Court required the learned APP to apprise trial status on the next adjourned date, directed compliance by the Applicant's Advocate within one week, and stood the matter over to 03rd April, 2025 under caption 'For Directions' to be heard finally due to the Applicant's long incarceration. Final decision on bail reserved; no precedent engaged; no monetary amount involved.

8.BA.1237.2025.doc

HARSHADA H. SAWANT (P.A.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BAIL APPLICATION NO.1237 OF 2025

Radheshyam Ramasare Gupta .. Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

.. Respondents

Ms. Gunjan Deepak Thakkar, Advocate for Applicant appointed through legal aid.

Mr. Sukanta A. Karmakar, APP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : MARCH 27, 2025

P.C.:

1. Heard Ms. Thakkar, learned Advocate for Applicant appointed through legal aid and Mr. Karmakar, learned APP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. Applicant is indicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘ IPC ’) and Sections 4, 6 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘ POCSO Act ’) for 5 years 7 months 3 days pending trial and charge has not been framed.

3. Ms. Thakkar, learned Advocate is appointed through legal aid to represent and espouse the cause of Applicant. She has filed Application on behalf of Applicant. Charge-sheet is annexed to the Application.

4. Today when the matter is called out Mr. Karmakar, learned

1 of 3

8.BA.1237.2025.doc

APP enters appearance for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and waives service on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Respondent No.3 is the private Respondent.

5. Issue notice to Respondent No.3. Humdast permitted. In addition to Court’s notice, Applicant is directed to serve a copy of this order and copy of the Application on the Investigating Officer directly.

6. Investigating Officer is directed by this Court to depute a responsible lady Police Officer to serve copy on Respondent No.3 and obtain her consent as to whether she requires legal representation through legal aid so that appropriate steps can be taken to appoint a Advocate through legal aid. The consent of Respondent No.3 shall be apprised to the Court on the next adjourned date through the learned APP.

7. Prima facie, Mr. Karmakar, learned APP points out to the Court that gravity of the offence is such that the Court while considering the present Application for bail should direct the learned Trial Court for expedition of trial. Court can certainly do that in a given case provided if there is some movement in the matter being heard by the Trial Court and on the part of the prosecution in the case before Trial Court. In the present case, what I find is that for the past 5 years 7 months, charge has not been framed. Trial is at a standstill. Mr. Karmakar, learned APP shall apprise the status of trial in the

2 of 3

8.BA.1237.2025.doc

present case on the next adjourned date after which the present Application shall be considered. Let the above directions be complied with by the learned Advocate for Applicant within a period of one week from today to enable the Court to pass further direction if necessary and then hear the matter finally due to long incarceration of Applicant pending trial.

8. Stand over to 03^rd April, 2025 . To be placed under the

caption ‘ For Directions ’.

H. H. SAWANT

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

Digitally signed by HARSHADAHANUMANT HARSHADAHANUMANTSAWANT SAWANT Date: 2025.03.27 14:33:23 +0530

3 of 3