Bombay High Court
Akash @ Lalla S/O Gajanan Ramchaware ( In ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Pso. Ps. Civil ... on 3 April, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:3575
941.appeal.85.2025.Judgment.odt
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.85 OF 2025
Akash @ Lalla s/o Gajanan Ramchaware,
Aged about 27 Years,
Occupation : Business,
R/o Mahaali Nagar,
Mothi Umri, Akola,
Taluka and District Akola. ..... APPELLANT
// VERSUS //
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Civil Lines,
Taluka and District Akola.
2. XYZ in Crime No.25/2023,
Police Station Officre,
Police Station, Civil Lines,
Taluka and District Akola. .... RESPONDENTS
----------------------------------------
Mr. Anil Mardikar, Senior Counsel a/b Mr. Digvijay Prakash
Singh, Counsel for the appellant.
Ms. Sneha Dhote, APP for the respondent No.1/State.
Mr. Deepak S. Patil, Counsel for the respondent No.2.
----------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
DATED : 03.04.2025
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Admit.
2. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel
appearing for the parties.
3. By preferring this appeal, the appellant has challenged
the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and
Special Judge, Akola by which the application of the present
941.appeal.85.2025.Judgment.odt
appellant for grant of bail is rejected. After rejecting the
application, the appellant has preferred an appeal bearing
No.668/2023 which was withdrawn with liberty file afresh after nine
months if there is no substantial progress in the trial. The appeal is
filed mainly on the ground that after passing of the order of this
Court on 06.03.2024, there is absolutely no progress in the trial and
the appellant is incarcerated as the trial is not progress.
4. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Mardikar for the
appellant, who submitted that the appellant is arraigned as an
accused in connection with Crime No.25/2023 registered under
Sections 376, 354, 354-B, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under
Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9(g) and 10 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act and under Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)
(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act. The crime is registered on the basis of report
lodged on an allegation that the informant who is the grandmother
of the victim alleged that on 15.01.2023 when the victim
accompanied with her friend on a night walking, at that time the
appellant approached them by saying that he wants to speak to the
victim and thereafter, the victim and her friend went along with the
appellant and the victim was subjected for the forceful sexual
assault. On the basis of the said report, police have registered the
crime against the present appellant. He submitted that as far as
941.appeal.85.2025.Judgment.odt
the merits of the matter is concerned, initially the appeal was
withdrawn, but, now there is absolutely no progress in the trial and
trial is held up. There is a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution
which is enshrined the right of the accused of a speedy trial. In view
of that, the appellant be released on bail by allowing this appeal.
5. Learned APP and learned Counsel for the respondent
No.2 strongly opposed for the same and submitted that the
roznama shows that initially trial was prolonged due to the
application filed by the appellant, and therefore, the ground of delay
in trial is not available to the present appellant. In view of that, the
appeal deserves to be dismissed.
6. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the
investigation papers, especially the statement of the victim and the
statement of her friend which show the involvement of the appellant
in the alleged offence, and therefore the initial disinclination was
there, but now the only ground raised by the appellant that there is
inordinate delay in trial. In support of his contention, he placed
reliance on the certified copy of the roznama. The certified copy of
the roznama shows that after passing of the order by this Court on
06.03.2024 there is absolutely no progress in the trial. The
roznama shows that the trial was prolonged only because the
appellant was not produced before the Court. No efforts are taken
either by the prosecution or by the Court to secure the presence of
941.appeal.85.2025.Judgment.odt
the appellant before the Court. There are catena of decisions of this
Court as well as the Apex Court which speaks about the right of the
present appellant as to the fundamental right, as to the speedy trial
which is enshrined Article 21 of the Constitution. Learned Senior
Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision of
Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh reported (2024) 8 SCC 293 wherein by
referring the earlier decision in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs.
State of Maharashtra and another (2024) 9 SCC 813 wherein
the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that "if the State or any
prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no
wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an
accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the
Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should
not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed
is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the
nature of the crime. "
7. In the light of the above observation, if the facts of the
present case are taken into consideration admittedly, the
involvement of the present appellant reveals in the crime, however,
the appellant cannot be kept behind bar for an indefinite period. The
right of the present appellant as to the speedy trial enshrined
Article 21 of the Constitution is affected. The trial is proceeding by
941.appeal.85.2025.Judgment.odt
the snail's speed. In view of that, the appeal deserves to be
allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed.
(ii) The order passed by the Special Court in Special
(POCSO) Case No.42/2023 dated 09.08.2023 is hereby
quashed and set aside.
(iii) The appellant Akash @ Lalla s/o Gajanan
Ramchaware shall be released on bail in connection with
Crime No.25/2023 registered with Police Station Civil Lines,
Akola, for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 354,
354-B, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3,
4, 5, 6, 8, 9(g) and 10 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act and under Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)
(ii), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, on executing PR Bond
in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one solvent surety of the
like amount.
(iv) The appellant shall attend the Civil Lines Police
Station, Akola twice in a month on 1 st and 15th of every
month till culmination of trial.
(v) The appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction of Akola
district without prior permission of the Court.
(vi) The appellant shall not enter into the vicinity of
Tathod Nagar, Mothi Umri, Akola, till the culmination of the
trial.
(vii) The appellant shall not induce, threat or promise any
witnesses who are acquainted with the facts of the case.
The appeal is disposed of.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
Signed by: Mr. A.R. Sarkate
Sarkate.
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 07/04/2025 10:47:36
