SHITO POHSHNA Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. R. War, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Khan, learned P.P.

(2.) At the outset, the learned P.P has submitted that this Court vide order dtd. 2/7/2025 has directed the IO to cause notice to be served upon the respondent No. 2/complainant and to file the compliance report by way of an affidavit-of-service. However, the learned P.P has submitted that though the said affidavit-of-service is ready, the same could not be filed before this Court and as such, it is prayed that this Court may allow the same to be filed in course of the day. The learned P.P has further submitted that on perusal of the affidavit-of-service it is evident that the said notice has been duly affected and the IO has also interacted with the complainant and has given him the option to either engage a counsel of his own or to resort to legal aid, if so desired. It is the desire of the complainant that because of his situation he may not be able to engage a private counsel and would rather depend on the learned P.P to also take up his course at the hearing. As such, the IO is allowed to file the affidavit-of-service in course of the day. Though an informal copy of the same has been produced before this Court, it would be sufficient for this Court to take note of the same, more so on the basis of the submission made by the learned P.P.

(3.) Coming to the merits of this case, the learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated that the main thrust of the petitioner's contention is that her accused son who was arrested in the first instance in connection with Amlarem P.S. Case No. 09(10)2022 under Sec. 5(m)(n)/6 POCSO Act has been in custody since the day he was arrested, that is, 21/10/2022. It is now about two years and nine months or so that he is in custody. In the meantime, trial has proceeded with the IO filing the charge sheet. The learned Special Judge (POCSO), West Jaintia Hills District, Jowai has taken cognizance of the same and thereafter, Special POCSO Case No. 7 of 2022 has been registered with the son of the petitioner as the accused person with charges framed on 3/5/2023. Altogether there are about 17 listed prosecution witnesses where 12 witnesses have been examined and discharged. The survivor was also examined as PW-4 on 13/11/2023. The IO who is suppose to take the witness stand was however not yet examined in court as it is reported that she is on maternity leave since the month of May, 2025. This being the case, the learned counsel has submitted that because of the time taken for the proceedings to be completed, wherein the accused/son of the petitioner has already undergone incarceration for a very long period of time, the case of the prosecution not likely to be completed within the next one or two months, therefore on this ground alone, the petitioner has prayed that the accused may be enlarged on bail with any conditions that may be deemed fit and proper to be imposed.