4 Years in Jail Without Trial Progress: Punjab & Haryana HC Grants Bail in POCSO Case, Cites Right to Speedy Trial
Case Name: Amit v. State of Haryana & Another & Arun @ Shiv v. State of Haryana & Another
Date of Judgment: 25.03.2026
Citation: CRM-M-71512-2025 & CRM-M-3882-2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj
Held: The High Court held that prolonged incarceration and slow trial progress justify grant of bail even in serious offences, as the right to speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21.
Summary: The petitions were filed seeking regular bail in an FIR registered under Sections 506, 34 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The allegations involved sexual assault of a minor child by the accused persons.
As per the prosecution case, the complainant alleged that the petitioners, who were residing in the same premises, had committed sexual acts upon her minor son and threatened him with dire consequences.
The petitioners contended that the allegations were false and highlighted inconsistencies between the victim’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and his deposition before the trial Court. It was further argued that they had been in custody for more than four years, had clean antecedents, and that key witnesses, including the complainant and victim, had already been examined.
The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the gravity of the offence and the statutory presumptions applicable under law. It was also submitted that the trial was still at an early stage, with only a few witnesses examined.
The Court noted that the petitioners had undergone incarceration of over four years and that only 3 out of 15 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far. It also observed that the petitioners were not involved in any other criminal case.
Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court emphasized that the right to speedy trial is an integral part of Article 21 and that prolonged detention without conclusion of trial cannot be justified, even in serious offences.
Decision: The High Court allowed both petitions and granted regular bail to the petitioners. It held that continued incarceration in the face of prolonged trial and limited progress in evidence would violate the fundamental right to speedy trial, and therefore, the petitioners were entitled to be released on bail subject to conditions.