JUDGMENT [1] These bail applications have been filed by fathers of the accused Md. Noor Mohhamad and Md. Salim Khan under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge them on bail in connection with FIR No.28(9)2020 on the file of the Women Police Station, Imphal West registered under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and under Sections 307/325 IPC read with Section 302 IPC. [2] The case of the prosecution is that on 2.9.2020 at about 11.00 a.m., the complainant lodged a complaint before the Officer-in- Charge of Women Police Station, Imphal West stating that on 1.9.2020 at around 8.00 a.m., his niece went out from her home and did not return back. They searched for the victim that night, but could not find her and they thought that she might have eloped. However, on the next day, they got information from locals who visited the field that they had found the victim lying unconscious at Irong Yendao Palli Mapoal with multiple bruises and seemed to be sexually assaulted by unknown persons. On receipt of the complaint, the Officer-in-Charge registered the FIR No.28(9)2020 and commenced the investigation. Unfortunately, on 3.9.2020 at about 2.05 p.m., the victim girl expired. The investigating Officer arrested the accused and remanded them to judicial custody. After Completion of the investigation, Charge sheet for the commission of the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO act and under Sections 307, 325 IPC read with Section 302, 120B, 34 IPC read with Section 107 IPC was filed against the accused. [3] The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that the accused Md. Noor Mohhamad and Md. Salim Khan are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the alleged Crime. He would submit that the allegation against the accused Md. Noor Mohhamad and Md. Salim Khan is that Phusam Souda, the elder sister of the victim, had stated that the victim had disclosed that four persons were involved in the said incident and the accused Md. Noor Mohhamad and Md. Salim Khan and others were seen by the locals during the night of the incident near the spot, whereas Dr.Yumnam Arunkumar, Dr.Mohammad Kamalluddin Vahrott, Lourembam (N) Khangembam (O) Selvia Devi and Thamangjam Binod in their 161 Cr.P.C statements stated that the victim girl had disclosed them that only the accused Maja Khan tried to kill her. Noor Mohhamad and Md. Salim Khan and others were seen by the locals during the night of the incident near the spot, whereas Dr.Yumnam Arunkumar, Dr.Mohammad Kamalluddin Vahrott, Lourembam (N) Khangembam (O) Selvia Devi and Thamangjam Binod in their 161 Cr.P.C statements stated that the victim girl had disclosed them that only the accused Maja Khan tried to kill her. [4] The learned senior counsel further submitted that earlier the petitioners have filed bail applications before the trial Court and the trial Court, by the order dated 15.1.2021, rejected the bail applications on the ground that the charge leveled against the accused is supported by the materials on record, including the statements of witnesses and there are reasonable apprehension of influencing the witnesses by the said accused persons and also the offences being heinous in nature. According to the learned senior counsel, the said finding arrived at by the trial Court while rejecting the bail applications is erroneous and that the trial Court went on to deal with the merits of the case. [5] The first and foremost contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that as per the amended provision of Section 439 Cr.P.C., it is mandatory on the part of the accused to give notice of intimation to the complainant and in this case, the petitioners have failed to give notice of intimation. [6] The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that many number of witnesses were examined in this case and particularly, in her Statement, the elder sister of the victim stated that the victim informed her while she was In ICU that two other persons were involved in the commission of the crime, apart from Mohammad and Maja Khan. [7] The learned Public Prosecutor then submitted that after completion of the investigation, the investigating officer filed the charge sheet before the POCSO Court and that the trial Court, after considering all these aspects, rightly rejected the bail applications of the accused Md. Noor Mohhamad and Md. Salim Khan. Since the crime committed by the accused is of heinous nature and crime against woman is one of the most atrocious crimes against the whole State, the learned Public Prosecutor prayed for dismissal of the bail applications. Noor Mohhamad and Md. Salim Khan. Since the crime committed by the accused is of heinous nature and crime against woman is one of the most atrocious crimes against the whole State, the learned Public Prosecutor prayed for dismissal of the bail applications. [8] In reply to the learned Public Prosecutor, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018, it is the duty of the Public Prosecutor to inform the complainant about the bail application filed by the accused and it is not mandatory on the part of the accused to give notice of intimation to the complainant. [9] This Court considered the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the materials available on record. [10] The argument of the learned Public Prosecutor that the accused must give notice of intimation to the complainant cannot be countenanced. Normally when the accused filed bail application, notice has to be given to the Public Prosecutor. Notice to complainant need not be issued in bail application except in cases where law insists so. In the instant case, nothing has been produced by the learned Public Prosecutor to show that notice of intimation has to be given to the complainant in the cases registered under the provisions of the POCSO Act. It is not the case of the prosecution that prior notice of bail applications were not served in the office of the learned Public Prosecutor. Only after taking notice, the learned Public Prosecutor is defending the bail applications. Therefore, this Court is of the view that as per the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018, notice to the learned Public Prosecutor is enough. [11] The case of the prosecution is that on 1.9.2020 at around 8.00 p.m., the victim girl went out from her home and did not return back and on the next day, the complainant’s family got information from locals who visited the field that they had found the victim lying unconscious at Irong Yendao Palli Mapal with multiple bruises and seemed to be sexually assaulted by unknown persons. According to the prosecution, the victim was kept in ICU, RIMS, where she was undergoing medical treatment and on 3.9.2020, the victim died despite best treatments given to her. According to the prosecution, the victim was kept in ICU, RIMS, where she was undergoing medical treatment and on 3.9.2020, the victim died despite best treatments given to her. [12] Further case of the prosecution is that in the course of investigation, the investigating officer arrested the main accused Arish @ Maja Khan and other accused involved in the crime and remanded them to judicial custody. It is also the case of the prosecution that on interrogation of accused Arish @ Maja Khan, he stated that he had raped the victim and killed her by strangulating her neck with his bare hand and later drown her into the pond of Yendou Palli area. [13] In the instant case, the petitioners are seeking bail mainly on the ground that the accused Md. Noor Mohammad and Md. Salim Khan were in custody from 4.9.2020 and till date the case has not seen the trial. According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, often this types of cases takes several years and if the accused Md. Noor Mohammad and Md. Salim Khan are denied bail, but are ultimately acquitted, who will restore 50 many years of their life spent in custody and therefore, Article 21 of the Constitution of India is very well attract in the instant case. [14] As stated supra, the accused Md. Noor Mohammad and Md. Salim Khan were in custody from 4.9.2020 and the investigating officer, after completing the investigation, has laid charge sheet against six accused and filed it before the Court concerned in the month of December, 2020. [15] It appears that the said charge sheet has not been taken on file by the concerned Court till date. However, it is the say of the prosecution that the expert opinion report from CFSL is yet to be received to draw final conclusion of the concrete involvement of the accused persons in the commission of the crime. Thus, it is clear the best part of the investigation was completed and the investigating officer has also filed the charge sheet before the concerned Court. It also appears that the offence alleged was dated 1.9.2020 and the accused were arrested on 4.9.2020 and from 4.9.2020 the accused Md. Noor Mohammad and Md. Salim Khan are in judicial custody. In the instant case, the cognizance of the offence has not taken by the trial Court till date. It also appears that the offence alleged was dated 1.9.2020 and the accused were arrested on 4.9.2020 and from 4.9.2020 the accused Md. Noor Mohammad and Md. Salim Khan are in judicial custody. In the instant case, the cognizance of the offence has not taken by the trial Court till date. [16] It is to be noted that in Alakh Alik Srivasta v. Union of India and others, reported in (2018) 17 SCC 291, the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued direction for constitution of Special Courts to deal with the cases under the POCSO Act and also issued direction to the High Courts to give suitable instructions to the Special Courts to fast track the cases by not granting unnecessary adjournments and following the procedure laid down in the POCSO Act and complete the trial in a time-bound manner or within a specific time frame under the Act. [17] It is also to be mentioned that as per Section 35 of the POCSO Act, evidence of the child shall be recorded within a period of thirty days of the Special Court taking cognizance of the offence and the reason for delay, if any, shall be recorded by the Special Court. The provision of POCSO Act further provides that the Special Court shall complete the trial, as far as possible, within a period of one year from the date of taking cognizance of the offence. [18] In the instant case, as stated supra, pending investigation, the | victim died on 3.9.2020 while she was in ICU. Therefore, recording of evidence within the specified time-frame stated in the Act does not arise. However, since one of the offences alleged is under the POCSO Act, the Special Court ought to have taken cognizance of the offence and begun the trial and completed the same as per the provisions of the POCSO Act. Since the best part of Investigation was completed, the question of hampering and tampering the statements of the witnesses recorded by the investigating officer does not arise. [19] The point that arises for consideration at this stage is whether the accused persons viz., Md. Noor Mohammad and Md. Salim Khan are entitled to be released on bail. Since the best part of Investigation was completed, the question of hampering and tampering the statements of the witnesses recorded by the investigating officer does not arise. [19] The point that arises for consideration at this stage is whether the accused persons viz., Md. Noor Mohammad and Md. Salim Khan are entitled to be released on bail. [20] According to the prosecution, the main accused involved in the commission of the crime is Arish @ Maja and in the charge sheet, it has been stated that on interrogation of the accused person namely Arish @ Maja Khan, he disclosed that he had raped the victim girl and killed her by strangulating her neck with his bare hand and later drown her into the pond. It appears that the other accused persons were arrayed in this case based on the statement given by the elder sister of the victim girl, who has stated that the victim girl disclosed her while she was in the ICU that two other persons were involved in the commission of the crime, apart from Mohammed from Loukok and Maja Khan. [21] At this juncture, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the nexus of the accused persons in the commission of the crime with the independent statements of two witnesses and the statement of the victim given to her sister in the hospital correlates and therefore, the involvement of accused Md. Noor Mohammad and Md. Salim Khan has been established by the prosecution and hence, the aforesaid two accused cannot be enlarged on bail. It is also the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that the trial Court after analyzing the seriousness of the offence and also taking note of the involvement of the accused persons, rightly rejected the bail applications. [22] On a reading of the order of the trial Court dated 15.1.2021, it is seen that the trial Court rejected the bail applications mainly on the ground that the investigating authority collected evidences pointing the finger to the accused persons, including the present accused as main accused persons and co-accused persons having meeting of minds in committing the offences. [23] Prima facie, there is no specific overt act attributed against the accused Md. Noor Mohammad and Md. Salim Khan. [23] Prima facie, there is no specific overt act attributed against the accused Md. Noor Mohammad and Md. Salim Khan. In the charge sheet itself, the investigating officer stated that “on interrogation of the accused person namely Arish @ Maja Khan admitted to have committed the charge levelled against him. He disclosed that he had raped the victim girl and killed her by strangulate her neck with his bare hand and later drown her into the pond of Yendou Palli area. After that he narrated the incident to his parents, and his parents send him first to his aunty’s place at Irong, later send him to Phoudel for kept him concealed”, in the charge sheet, it has also been stated that “the blood samples of the accused persons and the DNA sample of the victim were sent to CFSL, Assam and the results are yet to be received”. Thus, on a plain reading of the charge sheet, it is clear that the role of the accused Md. Noor Mohammad and Md. Salim Khan in the alleged commission of the offence has not been clearly stated. [24] At this juncture, by relying upon the dying declarations of the victim, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that there is clear overt act attributed to the accused persons and therefore, the accused persons cannot be enlarged on bail. The two dying declarations relied upon by the prosecution cannot be taken into account at the pre-trial stage as a conclusive proof. In fact, in the objection to the bail applications, the respondent State admitted that there are contradictions in the two dying declarations. Anyhow, this Court has not delved into the merits of the dying declarations said to have given by the victim girl. As stated supra, in the charge sheet, the investigating officer has not stated the specific overt act against the accused Md. Noor Mohammad and Md. Salim Khan. Therefore, in the absence of any specific overt act against the accused Md. Noor Mohammad and Md. Salim Khan, it cannot be said that the accused Md. Noor Mohammad and Md. Salim Khan have played a vital role in the commission of the offence. [25] The accused Md. Noor Mohammad and Md. Salim Khan, seek bail mainly on the ground that there is every possibility of delay in the trial of the case and they are in jail since 4.9.2020. Noor Mohammad and Md. Salim Khan have played a vital role in the commission of the offence. [25] The accused Md. Noor Mohammad and Md. Salim Khan, seek bail mainly on the ground that there is every possibility of delay in the trial of the case and they are in jail since 4.9.2020. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are seeking bail mainly on the ground that there is delay in trial and that there is no conclusive proof to show that the accused Md. Noor Mohammad and Md. Salim Khan involved in the crime alleged by the prosecution. [26] It is settled law that the grant or refuse to grant bail lies within the discretion of the Court, The grant or denial is regulated to a large extent by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. In the case on hand, as stated supra, the petitioners seek bail mainly on the ground of delay in the trial. In support, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala v. Raneef, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 784 . Admittedly, the said factor should be taken into consideration for granting bail to the accused persons. [27] In Raneef, supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held: “15. In deciding bail applications an important factor which should be certainly be taken into consideration by the court is the delay in concluding the trial. Often this takes several years, and if the accused is denied bail but is ultimately acquitted, who will restore so many years of his life spent in custody? Is Article 21 of the Constitution, which is the most basic of all the fundamental rights in our Constitution, not violated in such a case? Of course this is not the only factor, but it is certainly, one of the important factors in deciding whether to grant bail. In the present case the respondent has already spent 66 days in custody (as stated in Para 2 of his counter-affidavit), and we see no reason why he should be denied bail. Of course this is not the only factor, but it is certainly, one of the important factors in deciding whether to grant bail. In the present case the respondent has already spent 66 days in custody (as stated in Para 2 of his counter-affidavit), and we see no reason why he should be denied bail. A doctor incarcerated for a long period may end up like Dr.Manettee in Charles Dicken’s novel A Tale of Two Cities, who forgot his profession and even his name in the Bastille.” [28] It is a settled law that the grant of bail ought not to be denied only on the perceived apprehension by the Court that the accused, if restored to liberty, will tamper with the evidence. There must be some Prima facie evidence on record or reasonable and justifiable ground S to believe that in case the benefit of bail is extended to an accused, he is going to misuse his liberty or he would create conditions which are not conducive to hold a fair trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments has confirmed that “bail is the rule and jail is an exception”. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive, but is meant to secure presence of the accused during the trial. [29] It has been time and again held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that a procedure which keeps large number of people behind bars without trial, for long, cannot be regarded as “reasonable, just, fair” so as to be in conformity with the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Detaining the under-trial prisoners in custody for an indefinite period is a gross violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. The trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future and keeping the accused herein in custody indefinitely till the completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship and violation of personal liberty. [30] Thus, it is the admitted position that when the under-trial prisoners are detained in jail custody to an indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution of India is violated. Every person, detained or arrested is entitled to speedy trial and the Act also provides time frame to complete the trial. [30] Thus, it is the admitted position that when the under-trial prisoners are detained in jail custody to an indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution of India is violated. Every person, detained or arrested is entitled to speedy trial and the Act also provides time frame to complete the trial. Merely the fact that one of the offences allegedly committed by the accused herein was registered under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, the accused Md. Noor Mohammad and Md. Salim Khan cannot be denied bail on the ground that the offence is serious in nature. [31] In Babba v. State of Maharastra, reported in (2005) 11 SCC 569 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when there is a delay in the trial, bail should be granted to the accused. In the instant case, admittedly, the trial Court has not taken the cognizance of the offence. However, the accused herein are in custody from 4.9.2020. [32] The law is well settled that the primary purposes of bail in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the Court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the Court and be In attendance thereon whenever his Presence is required. [33] In Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows: “21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The Courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.” [34] Time and again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court held that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. The Courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.” [34] Time and again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court held that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. The Courts have also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. [35] The principles relating to grant or refusal of bail have been stated in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, reported at (2004) 7 SCC 528 . In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted, particularly, where the accused is charged of having committed a serious Offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is a also necessary for the Court granting ball to consider among either circumstances and the following facts also before granting bail; they are: (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction anti the nature of supporting evidence. (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge. [36] In Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that a fundamental postulate of Criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences, but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences, but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correctional home is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. [37] Thus, it is clear that grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the Judge considering the case, but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as by the High Courts in the country. [38] To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a Judge while dealing with the bail application. Even if the offence is a serious offence, requires a humane treatment by the Court, humane treatment to all including an accused is requirement of law. [39] At this juncture, it is to be noted that the accused herein have been charged under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 307/325 read with Section 302/120-B/34/107 IPC which may extend to imprisonment for life with fine. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent. On the other hand, it is the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, it is presumed that the accused herein have committed the offence unless the contrary is proved. The innocence and the alleged involvement of the accused herein in the crime cannot now be gone into, as the trial is yet to begin and the fact remains that the charge sheet has not been taken on file by the concerned Court so far. The innocence and the alleged involvement of the accused herein in the crime cannot now be gone into, as the trial is yet to begin and the fact remains that the charge sheet has not been taken on file by the concerned Court so far. [40] The trial Court dismissed the bail applications, inter alia, on the grounds that: (i) the charge leveled against the accused herein is that the commission of the crime was well supported by materials on record, including the statements of witnesses; (ii) the charged offences being under Section 6 of POCSO Act, Section 307/32/302/120-B/34/107 IPC is a heinous offence and (iii) there are reasonable apprehension of influencing the witnesses mainly the relatives/near ones of the victim. [41] The accused herein also undertake not to attempt to influence any witness or to attempt to tamper any evidence that may be relevant for the present case and to face the complete trial and not flee from justice, They deep roots in the Society and is not likely to flee. Admittedly, both the accused herein are young. As stated supra, there is no specific overt act attributed against the accused Md. Noor Mohammad and Md. Salim Khan by the prosecution. Moreover, the investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed before the Court. Therefore, this Court is of the view that on the ground of delay in trial and since the accused herein are in custody from 4.9.2020, the accused Md. Noor Mohammad and Md. Salim Khan are entitled to be enlarged on bail. [42] It is true that victims of POCSO Act are suffering and facing social stigma, agony and trauma because of the occurrence and could not recover completely from the said heinous Incident. In some of the cases, the minor victims are suffering not only mental trauma, agony, social. Ostracisation, but also withdrawn from the society. However, considering the fact that there is delay in trial and also taking note of the fact that the accused Md. Noor Mohammad and Md. Salim Khan are in custody from 4.9.2020 and in view of the assurance extended on behalf of the accused Md. Noor Mohammad and Md. Salim Khan that they shall not hamper or tamper the prosecution witnesses and also there are no criminal antecedents, which would disentitle them from getting bail, this Court persuaded to grant bail to them. Salim Khan are in custody from 4.9.2020 and in view of the assurance extended on behalf of the accused Md. Noor Mohammad and Md. Salim Khan that they shall not hamper or tamper the prosecution witnesses and also there are no criminal antecedents, which would disentitle them from getting bail, this Court persuaded to grant bail to them. [43] Accordingly, the bail applications are allowed and the accused Md. Noor Mohammad and Md. Salim, who are arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3 in the charge sheet are ordered to be enlarged on bail in connection with the FIR Case No.28(9)2020 on the file of the Women Police Station, Imphal West, Subject to them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the following conditions: (i) The accused Md, Noor Mohammad and Md. Salim Khan shall not leave the place of their residences without permission of the Court and shall ordinarily reside at a place of residence and the complete address of such place shall be furnished to the trial Court at the time of release. (ii) The accused Md. Noor Mohammad and Md. Salim Khan shall appear before the trial Court weekly twice i.e., Monday and Friday at 10.30 a.m, until further orders. (iii) If the accused Md. Noor Mohammad and Md. Salim Khan have passport, they shall also surrender the same to the trial Court. (iv) The accused Md, Noor Mohammad and Md. Salim Khan shall not contact nor visit nor threaten nor offer any inducement to the family of the victim or the complainant Or any of the prosecution witnesses. (v) The accused Md. Noor Mohammad and Md. Salim Khan Shall not tamper with evidence nor otherwise indulge in any act or omission that would prejudice the proceedings in the matter. (vi) It is clarified that if the accused Md. Noor Mohammad and Md. Salim Khan misuses the liberty or violate any of the conditions imposed upon them, the prosecution shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. (vii) Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of the present bail petitions. Salim Khan misuses the liberty or violate any of the conditions imposed upon them, the prosecution shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. (vii) Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of the present bail petitions. (viii) The Police authorities are directed to ascertain the status of the charge sheet submitted to the trial court and take necessary steps in accordance with law, as the alleged offence is under the provisions of the POCSO Act, which mandates the time-frame for completion of investigation, trial and final decision.