The High Court granted bail to the applicant, considering the long period of incarceration without substantial progress in the trial. Despite opposition from the prosecution, the Court emphasized the applicant's right to a speedy trial as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

1. Parties Represented (Para 1):

• Mr. Pednekar for the applicant, Mr. Nakhwa for the State (Respondent No. 1), and Ms. Prajapati representing Respondent No. 2.

2. Background (Para 2):

• Second bail application after the first was withdrawn in January 2024, with liberty to file again after 6 months due to lack of progress in the trial.

3. Application Under Section 439 CrPC (Para 3):

• Details of the case, including FIR, arrest, and charge-sheet details, showing charges under Sections 376 and 323 IPC and Sections 4, 6, and 12 of the POCSO Act.

4. Applicant’s Arguments (Paras 4 & 5):

• The applicant has been in custody for 3 years and 10 months, with only one witness examined so far. Personal hardship is highlighted, including the death of the applicant's father during incarceration.

5. Opposition by Prosecution (Para 6):

• Prosecution and victim’s counsel argued seriousness of the offense, relying on FIR, the victim's Section 164 CrPC statement, and medical reports.

6. Supreme Court Precedents Cited (Para 6):

• Counsel for the victim cited Shivani Tyagi v. State of U.P. to emphasize the need for careful consideration in bail matters for serious offenses.

7. Court’s Initial Observations (Para 7):

• The applicant is involved in a serious offense, but there is no substantial progress in the trial, with only one witness examined out of 15 proposed.

8. Right to Speedy Trial (Para 9):

• The Court stressed the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21, citing that delays violate this right.

9. Further Supreme Court Observations (Paras 10 & 11):

• In Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court highlighted the humanistic approach and the presumption of innocence. The case's delay was found to infringe on the applicant’s rights.

10. Applicant’s Profile (Paras 11–16):

• The applicant is a 24-year-old with no prior criminal record, not a flight risk, and has agreed to comply with conditions, including staying out of Beed district.

Order:

1. Bail Granted (Para 17):

   • Applicant granted bail on personal bond of ₹15,000 with stringent conditions, including regular reporting to the police and restrictions on entering Beed district.

2. Additional Directions (Paras 17-20):

   • Applicant to surrender passport, not tamper with evidence or contact witnesses, attend trial regularly, and comply with all other conditions.

3. Acknowledgment of Counsel (Para 20):

   • The Court appreciated Ms. Reena Prajapati's assistance and recommended her for inclusion in the High Court Legal Services Committee.

Legal Provisions Discussed:

• Section 439 CrPC: Application for bail.
• IPC Sections 376 & 323: Charges of rape and causing hurt.
• POCSO Act Sections 4, 6 & 12: Pertaining to sexual offenses against minors.
• Article 21 of the Constitution: Right to life and liberty, including the right to a speedy trial.

Ratio:

The Court ruled that despite the seriousness of the offense, the applicant's prolonged incarceration without progress in trial infringes upon his constitutional right to a speedy trial, justifying bail under strict conditions.

Subjects:

Criminal Law, Bail, Speedy Trial

Section 439 CrPC, Article 21, IPC, POCSO Act, Prolonged Incarceration, Right to Life, Speedy Trial, High Court