Akash Ekka v. State Of West Bengal And ANR.

28.11.2023 Serial no.4 Court No.1 (CHC) (Rejected) Calcutta High Court In The Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Appellate Side CRM (DB) 644 of 2023 In re : An Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Rajganj Police Station Case No. 23 of 2019 dated 28.01.2019 under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and read with Section 04 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. -AndIn the matter of : Akash Ekka ... ... Petitioner Mr. Pronojit Roy, Advocate ... ... For the Petitioner Mr. Nilay Chakraborty, Advocate Mr. Chattu Roy, Advocate ... ...For the State Petitioner prays for bail.

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, petitioner is in custody since January 29, 2019. Charges were framed on July 18, 2019. Out of 14 prosecution witnesses only one was examined. He draws attention of the Court to the deposition of the victim girl which was recorded on November 10, 2022. He refers to Section 35 of the Protection of Children

from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. He submits that, the trial is yet to be concluded. He seeks bail on the ground of period of detention as also violation of the provisions of Section 35(2) of the Act, 2012.

Learned advocate appearing for the State submits that, the victim was 14 1⁄2 years when the incident occurred. The victim became pregnant. The principal accused is the petitioner before Court.

We perused the deposition of the victim.

Victim implicates the petitioner.

The petitioner is in incarceration for a considerable period of time. Charges were framed on July 18, 2019. Deposition of the victim was recorded n November 1, 2022. The Court is informed that next date fixed for recording the evidence of the prosecution witness is December 4, 2023. We are of the view that, the provisions of Section 35(2) of the Act of 2012 is not mandatory. It mandates the Special Court to complete the trial, as far as possible, within the period prescribed. Therefore, the prescription of one year cannot be said to be of such a mandate, that every trial needs to be completed within a year. Section 35(2) of the Act of 2012 envisages that there can be situation where, the trial could not be completed within a period of one year. It requires the Special Court to endeavour to complete the trial within the specified period in view of the gravity of the offence and the rights of the parties involved.

We are, therefore, direct that, the learned Court will endeavour to dispose of the trial as expeditiously as possible. He will not grant unnecessary adjournments to any of the parties. He will invoke Section 309 of the Criminal Prcedurel Cde and fix the trial on day to day basis as far as practicable.

Prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected at this stage. CRM (DB) 644 of 2023 dismissed.

(Debangsu Basak, J.) (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)