Single-judge Justice Bharati Dangre also sought reasons why special courts under POCSO were failing to adhere to the provisions of the Act.
“The Principal Judge shall submit further report and analyse causes for delay in concluding the POCSO cases and why concerned courts are unable to adhere to the mandate, provided under the special statute keeping in mind objective underlining the same being less inconvenient and humiliation to be faced by the victim and by ensuring speedy trial,” the Court ordered.
The bench was seized of an application seeking bail on the ground of delay in the trial as the accused was arrested in 2016.
The order was passed after the Court considered an earlier report detailing the pendency of POCSO cases before the special courts in the city.
“Looking to (sic) the pendency of the POCSO cases before the Courts, it can be said that the special courts are also under severe pressure of concluding the trials and therefore it is not uncommon as far as the present case lodged in 2016, is concerned, the trial is not yet concluded,” the judge noted.
The Court was further informed that the case that it was dealing with was pending before a special court in Dindoshi, which has around 240 cases pending on its file.
It also noted the discrepancy in the distribution of POCSO cases among various special courts.
“While going through the information supplied by the Principal Judge, the startling feature which is noticed by me is allotment of 1,228 cases with court room number 11 and 1,070 cases with court room number 12. In contrast, court room number 9 is shown to have 138 cases and court room number 10 is having 116 cases. The disparity in the distribution of cases is not understood. Therefore, the Principal Judge shall explain the same,” Justice Dangre said in the order.
Source: Barandbench
