JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam and Ms. P. Das, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. The present bail application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for granting bail to the petitioner, namely, Bikram Paul @ Biplob Paul who is in custody since 28.09.2023 in connection with Special Sessions (POCSO) Case No. 201/2023 arising out of Karimganj P.S. Case No. 694/2023 registered under Section 376(A) IPC read with Section 6 of POCSO Act which is pending in the court of learned Special Judge, Karimganj. 3. The brief facts of the present case is that the informant of the case, one Brajendra Das lodged an FIR dated 12.09.2023 before the O/C Karimganj Police Station inter alia alleging that on 09.09.2023 at about 06:00 AM, his minor daughter namely “XX” was found dead at his house. Thus, they suspected that some unknown persons committed rape on her and killed her. On receipt of the ejahar, a case was registered vide Karimganj PS Case No. 694/2023 dated 12.09.2023 under Section 376(A) IPC read with Section 6 of POCSO Act. On the basis of the said FIR, the petitioner was arrested on 28.09.2023 and was forwarded to the learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj. The petitioner is in custody since the date of his arrest. 4. After completion of the investigation, the investigating agency submitted the charge sheet being Charge Sheet No. 567/2023 dated 26.12.2023 along with the case diary against three accused persons including the petitioner and the case record was put up before the learned trial Court below. 5. Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner submits the following: I. The petitioner is innocent and falsely implicated in the instant case. The actual fact of the case is that the petitioner is a friend of co-accused, one Rahul Das who was known to the victim. The aforesaid co-accused was having a friendly relationship with the victim due to which they occasionally communicated with each other over phone and the said aspect was known to the petitioner. II. The prosecution side relied on circumstantial evidence to arrest the petitioner but the circumstances mentioned in the forwarding report nowhere raised any doubt regarding the involvement of the petitioner. II. The prosecution side relied on circumstantial evidence to arrest the petitioner but the circumstances mentioned in the forwarding report nowhere raised any doubt regarding the involvement of the petitioner. Hence, the implication of the petitioner in the instant case is totally false, fabricated and having no basis and the petitioner became a victim of circumstances as stated above. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, the ingredients of the alleged offences are not at all attracted against the petitioner. The petitioner has been languishing behind the bar since the date of his arrest. III. The petitioner was arrested on 28.09.2023 along with 2 other accused i.e. Rahul Das and Subroto Malakar. The co-accused Rahul Das was granted default bail on 28.12.2023 by the learned trial Court as the investigating agency failed to submit charge sheet within statutory period. The co-accused Rahul Das filed one petition vide Petition No. 995/01 praying for default bail on 28.12.2023 and after perusal of the record, the learned trial Court, released the co-accused Rahul Das on default bail vide order dated 28.12.2023. IV. According to the petitioner, the learned trial Court, while releasing the co-accused on default bail, ought to have informed the other accused persons including the petitioner about their right to be released on bail if they are able to furnish sureties as the petitioner was also arrested on the same day. V. The petitioner was thoroughly interrogated during the investigation. There were no materials found against the petitioner that the petitioner was involved in the offence and neither the petitioner was likely to abscond, if granted bail by this Court. In view of the above and the period of detention, the further detention of the petitioner shall not serve any purpose except as under trial detention without any justification. Therefore, this Court may be pleased to release the petitioner by granting him the privilege of bail by imposing any condition. 6. Mr. P. S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State respondent submits the following: I. The offence is a heinous offence of gang rape and murder of a minor. There are materials in the case diary against all the three accused persons, based on which the charge sheet was filed. Therefore, this is not a fit case for grant of bail. II. There are materials in the case diary against all the three accused persons, based on which the charge sheet was filed. Therefore, this is not a fit case for grant of bail. II. The sole eye witness, the minor sister of the victim who was sleeping next to the victim at the time of commission of the offence has not yet been examined and therefore, at this stage the accused may not be released on bail. 7. Ms. P. Das, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 while adopting the arguments of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor vehemently objects grant of bail. 8. This Court has given anxious considerations to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and has also perused the materials available on record. 9. On the aforesaid backdrop, now let this Court look into the facts of the present case. 10. The prosecution case is that on 12.09.2023, the informant lodged an Ejahar to the effect that on 09.09.2023 at about 06:00 AM, his minor daughter was found dead at his house. Thus, they suspected that some unknown persons committed rape on her and killer her. Thereafter, the case was registered and investigated into. 11. The Charge Sheet was filed on 26.12.2023, charges under Section 376(A) of IPC read with Section 6 of POCSO Act, were framed by the learned trail Court 02.04.2024. The prosecution has proposed to lay their case on the basis of twenty witnesses. 12. First prosecution witness was examined on 29.04.2024 and two witnesses have been examined till date and the last witness was examined on 05.03.2025. Thus, total 21 witnesses are yet to be examined and in the meantime, the petitioner has been in custody for more than one year nine months as on date. 13. From the aforesaid, it is seen that the prosecution is relying on 23 (twenty three) witnesses and till date only, two witnesses have been examined. From the record, it is also seen that the prosecution has failed to produce official witnesses to depose before the Court on trial and it took 8 (eight) months to examine one witness till date. 14. From the record, it is also seen that the prosecution has failed to produce official witnesses to depose before the Court on trial and it took 8 (eight) months to examine one witness till date. 14. From the case diary, it is revealed that statement of the sister of the victim another minor who was sleeping in the nearby bed was also recorded and she also stated that after hearing hue and cry on the fateful night, she woke-up and saw one of the accused with some other persons fleeing away. Unfortunately, this witness was not a listed witness. At the same time, it is very unfortunate to note that on the last date when the matter was fixed for evidence before the trial Court, the said witness was produced by prosecution for examination, however, the learned trial judge refused to examine her for the reason that she is not a cited witness in the charge sheet. 15. It is very disturbing that in such a serious nature of case, when during the investigation the minor sister of the minor victim was projected to be sleeping with the victim and stated to be seeing some of the accused, however, the investigating officer has not cited her as an witness. Mr. K Gogoi, learned PP who was also present during the course of argument submits that such lacuna on the part of the investigating officer is fatal to the prosecution case and therefore, he will not object to issuance of a direction to the competent authorities to look into the matter. 16. This Court is also of the opinion that no prejudice would have been caused to the prosecution, if these witnesses had been examined by the trial Court inasmuch as her statement was recorded by the investigating authority under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and therefore, the learned trial Court ought to have examined this witness. Even otherwise, the learned trial Court based on the material available on record, instead of sending such witness back could have examined her as a court witness. 17. Coming to the delay in prosecution, this court is of the opinion that there are delay in prosecution, however, one of the major reason for such delay was that the presiding judge was having health issues for a very long period and on that background, summons were not issued to the witnesses. 17. Coming to the delay in prosecution, this court is of the opinion that there are delay in prosecution, however, one of the major reason for such delay was that the presiding judge was having health issues for a very long period and on that background, summons were not issued to the witnesses. It is now informed at the bar that a new presiding officer has taken charge and after that examination of witness has resumed. 18. Therefore, considering the matter in entirety including right of the petitioner under article 21 of the constitution of India as well as the nature of allegation against the petitioner and the seriousness of offence, in the opinion of this court, ends of justice would be met if it is directed that the trial be completed as expeditiously as possible and not beyond 8 months from the next date fixed in the trial Court. It is also directed that the state shall ensure examination of their witnesses and that summons are issued properly and in the due course of time. 19. Copy of this order be forwarded to the Director General of Police, Assam as well as the Director of Prosecution, State of Assam, so that such lacunas on the part of the investigating officer is avoided and that such kind of lackadaisical approach is not repeated by the investigating officers in future and that the prosecution produces their witnesses before the trial Court inasmuch as substantial period has in the meantime elapsed. 20. Accordingly, the prayer of bail at this stage stands rejected.