Even in prosecutions involving the gravest allegations, the Constitution does not permit pre-trial detention to become the sentence. On 17 September 2026, Justice Tirthankar Ghosh of the Calcutta High Court, in Sourav Kona, CRM(M) 2079 of 2026, granted regular bail to a petitioner who had spent more than three years in custody in Jagaddal Police Station Case No. 323 of 2023 — a prosecution under the trafficking and allied provisions of the IPC, the POCSO Act, 2012 and the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 — during which only six of twenty-eight prosecution witnesses had been examined.
The prosecution and the custody
The petitioner was arrested on 18 August 2023 in a case alleging trafficking of a minor for exploitation, charged under Sections 120B, 366A, 370, 370A, 372 and 373 of the IPC, Sections 6, 17 and 21 of the POCSO Act and Sections 3 to 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. By September 2026 he had spent over three years in custody as an undertrial. The trial, meanwhile, had examined six witnesses out of twenty-eight cited.
The court's assessment
The State opposed bail on the strength of the victim\'s statements. The Court considered the evidence recorded thus far and the arithmetic of the trial\'s progress, and concluded in terms that are brief but complete: "Having considered the same, I am of the opinion further custodial detention of the present petitioner is unwarranted." Bail followed on a bond of ₹20,000 with two sureties of ₹10,000 each, one of them local, coupled with a duty of physical presence on every trial date and a bar on leaving the territorial jurisdiction without leave.
Reading the order: proportionality, not leniency
Nothing in the order dilutes the seriousness of trafficking or child-sexual-offence prosecutions. What it enforces is proportion between the State\'s progress and the accused\'s liberty. Three considerations do the work in cases of this kind.
The framework in Delhi
Applications of this nature in Delhi proceed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 before the Sessions Court or the High Court. In POCSO matters, Section 40 of the Act and the rules entitle the victim to notice and representation at the bail hearing, and courts frequently tailor conditions to prohibit contact with the victim\'s family and residence in the victim\'s locality. None of that alters the constitutional baseline this order applies: where years pass and the witness list barely moves, Article 21 begins to speak louder than the chargesheet.
The practice point
Defence counsel should place the certified order-sheets of the trial court on record with the bail application — they prove the pace of the trial better than any submission. For the prosecution, the lesson is operational: in grave cases, the surest way to defend custody is to produce witnesses promptly, beginning with the victim, so that the court weighing bail sees a trial moving to its conclusion rather than one adrift.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice or a solicitation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What were the charges?
The case invoked Sections 120B, 366A, 370, 370A, 372 and 373 of the IPC — conspiracy, procuration of a minor girl, trafficking of persons, exploitation of a trafficked person, and selling or buying a minor for purposes of prostitution — with Sections 6, 17 and 21 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Sections 3 to 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
Why was bail granted in such a serious case?
The petitioner had been in custody since 18 August 2023 — over three years — while only 6 of 28 prosecution witnesses had been examined. The Court weighed the evidence recorded so far and the pace of trial against the period of detention, concluding that "further custodial detention of the present petitioner is unwarranted." Gravity of charge does not by itself justify indefinite pre-trial custody.
What conditions were imposed?
Release on a bond of ₹20,000 with two sureties of ₹10,000 each (one local), physical appearance before the trial court on every date, and a bar on leaving the trial court's jurisdiction without permission — alongside the usual caution against tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
Is bail in POCSO cases treated differently?
POCSO offences carry no statutory twin conditions of the kind found in the NDPS Act or UAPA, so ordinary bail principles apply — though courts weigh the vulnerability of the victim, the risk of influencing the child witness, and the stage of the child's testimony heavily. Where the child's evidence is complete, or the trial is stagnant despite long custody, bail becomes progressively harder to refuse.