"Country In Unlock,Trial Courts Must Commence/ Continue Trials In POCSO, Rape, Negotiable Instruments, PMLA Cases Etc": Calcutta HC

On Thursday a Division Bench comprising of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Suvra Ghosh directed the trial courts to commence/continue trial proceedings either via physical mode or hybrid/video conferencing mode, as they may consider it appropriate, and upon following appropriate COVID protection and social distancing measures preferably in the following cases:-

a) Sessions cases where one or more accused is in custody for two years and more (like the present one) and magistrate triable cases where the accused is in custody for six months or more.

b) Cases where specified time frame for conclusion of trial has been stipulated in the law e.g. POCSO Act, rape cases, Prevention of Corruption Act, Negotiable Instruments Act, etc.

c) Criminal cases involving Ponzi matters, cases pending before the Special Courts under Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

d) Cases pending before Special Courts under National Investigation Agency Act.

e) Cases where specified directions for conclusion of trial has been given by the superior courts.

f) Cases which are at a matured stage, that is, examination of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C., arguments, etc.

The Bench was considering application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure under Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act and under Sections 9B(II) of the Explosive Act and under Sections 3/4 of the E. S. Act.

The Petitioner has been in custody for more than five years.

The Petitioner pleaded that there is little possibility of trial concluding in the near future.

The State while opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the petitioner was one of the members of the gang who was found in possession of a huge cache of fire arms and explosives.

The Justices remarked that allegations against the petitioner are grave. And witness action has already commenced.

The Court observed that the prayer for bail of co-accused has also been turned down by a co-ordinate bench of this Court.

In view of the aforesaid facts, the Bench did not consider it prudent to enlarge the petitioner on bail merely on the plea there is delay in trial due to the prevailing pandemic and rejected the bail application.

"However, we are not unmindful of the protracted period of under-trial detention suffered by the petitioner."added the Bench.

The Justices while relying upon Hussain Vs. Union of India, 2017 (5) SCC 720, reiterated that the Apex Court has proposed a uniform target to conclude trial in sessions cases where under-trials are in detention for two years and in magistrate triable cases where the detention is six months and more.

The Bench concluded by issuing directions to the trial courts to commence the trial proceedings.