Practically impossible for courts to conclude trial of POCSO cases within one year due to docket explosion: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court recently held that the failure of trial courts to conclude proceedings of cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) within one year cannot be a ground for accused persons to be released on bail. .The Court made this observation while dealing with a petition filed by a person accused of an offence under the POCSO Act seeking bail on the ground that there was delay in completion of the trial. Section 35 of the Act requires completion of trial, as far as possible, within one year. .Taking the provision into consideration, a Single Judge Bench of Justice BA Patil observed,."On close reading of sub-section (2) of Section 35 of the POCSO Act, it indicates that though the Special Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of one year from the date of taking cognizance, the words used in between the said sentence ‘as far as possible’ themselves indicate the fact that it is not mandate of the law that the trial should be completed within a period of one year from the date of taking cognizance. When some discretion is given under the said provision, as far as possible the trial Court can try to complete the trial within a period of one year. When that being so, it cannot be held that there is a delay on the part of the trial Court to complete the trial."Karnataka High Court.Therefore, if courts are directed to strictly adhere to Section 35 of the POCSO Act, then "ultimately justice will suffer", the Court noted. .The accused was charged with committing rape of a minor girl back in January 2018. After he was taken into custody, he approached the trial court for bail, but the same was rejected. Subsequently, he approached the High Court, which also denied bail. More than a year later, arguing that no progress had been made in the case before the trial court, the accused approached the High Court for bail once again..Counsel appearing for the accused submitted that he and the survivor were in love with each other, and that the survivor went to his residence without any force or pressure..It was further submitted that the High Court, while rejecting his initial bail plea, had issued a direction to the trial court to expedite the trial. In spite of the said direction, till date, the trial has not been concluded, counsel for the accused argued..Relying on Section 35 of the POCSO Act, it was contended that not recording the evidence of the victim within a period of 30 days from the date of taking cognizance and not concluding the trial within one year from the date of taking cognizance gives the accused the right to bail. .Refuting the grant of bail, government pleader argued that the accused had committed rape on the minor girl. Moreover, concerns that the accused would tamper with prosecution witnesses and threaten the victim and her family members if he was granted bail, were also raised. .It was further argued that that delay in trial is not a ground to release the accused on bail. .After considering the rival submissions, the Court proceeded to hold that recently, there has been a huge docket explosion with regard to POCSO cases. Therefore, it is practically impossible for trial courts to conclude the trial within one year, reasoned the Court.."....now-a-days there is docket explosion and many cases are coming under the POCSO Act. Though the special Courts are constituted, if the trial Court is pressurized by taking shelter under Section 35 of the POCSO Act, then under such circumstances, it is practically impossible for the trial Court to conclude the trial within one year. If in all the cases the same yardstick is adopted, then under such circumstances, the guidelines issued to consider the provisions of Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail by the Hon’ble Apex Court are going to be diverted and diluted, that too when thepetitioner-accused No.1 has been involved in a serious offence of penetrative sexual assault on a minor girl.".On these grounds, the Court rejected the bail application. .[Read order here]