1 CAG-1558.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE  CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1558 OF 2010 Baby Raju Gupta .... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1667 OF 2010 Pappu Birju Gupta .... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1668 OF 2010 Raju @ Baleshwar Birju Gupta .... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents S/Shri P.R. Dave with S.P. Dalvi for the Applicant in all Applications. Ms P.P. Shinde, APP, for the State in all Applications. S/Shri Mandar Goswami with Satyajeet Dighe i/b S.K. Shinde, PPs, for Respondent No.2-CBI in CAs-1558 & 1667 of 2010. Ms Revati Mohite Dere, PP, for Respondent No.2 in CA-1668 of 2010. Shri Yogendra Kumar, PI, CBI(SCB), Mumbai, present. 2 CAG-1558.10 CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: SEPTEMBER 17, 2010 P.C: 1. Three members of a family, who have been booked for the offences punishable under Sections 366-A, 372 and 373 of the IPC r/w Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as PITA ), seek enlargement on bail. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that technicalities which are required for proceeding against the accused under PITA have not been complied with and therefore PITA would not at all be applicable. The learned trial Judge would surely look into this at the time of framing the charge. The applicants may also be right in submitting that none of the applicants have in fact kidnapped or brought minor girls from their native place to Thane. This also the learned trial Judge may look into at the time of framing of the charge. The learned counsel for the applicants states that on 9-3-2010, after getting a report from the learned trial Judge, this Court admitted one Rajdevkumar Mathura Yadav to bail on finding that the trial was not at all 3 CAG-1558.10 proceeding. The applicants themselves are in jail for almost two years now. He submits that even today the position is not different and, therefore, the applicants may be admitted to bail; first, because Rajdevkumar Mathura Yadav has been admitted to bail and, secondly, because the material against them does not justify an inference that any of them would be sentenced to imprisonment for life. 2. I have heard the learned PPs for the CBI, which is the prosecuting agency. They, on instructions from PI Yogendra Kumar, state that the CBI would ensure that the witnesses are kept present in the Court on the dates on which the Court summons them. The CBI would also ensure that its prosecutors would also remain present before the trial Court and the CBI will not seek any adjournment in the trial. The learned APP for the State also assures that the accused persons would be produced from jail on all the dates on which the case may be fixed by the learned trial Judge. She also states that in case there is any difficulty, the State would make arrangements for production of the accused for the trial through video conferencing. Both the learned PPs for the CBI as well as the learned APP for the State assure 4 CAG-1558.10 that the trial will not be delayed on that count. 3. The learned counsel for the applicants, however, submits that this alone will not ensure speedy trial as may be seen from the report of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has unfortunately enumerated all the jurisdictions which are vested in him. Merely because he is vested with the jurisdiction under the Electricity Act and has to look after cases of under-trials, regular cases, etc., it does not mean that he cannot decide on giving priority to this case. The learned Judge has pointed out that there are some 12 matters which have been ordered to be expeditiously heard by that Court. Even after taking into consideration all this, the report of the learned Judge shows that it was not on account of his business that the case could not be heard but because of the absence of the special prosecutor for the CBI that the case was held up. The enumeration of the learned Judge about his being busy has to be ignored. The learned Judge would bear in mind the importance of the case from the point of view of repercussion on the society and would ensure that the 5 CAG-1558.10 applicants are put to speedy trial. In view of the assurances given by PI Yogendra Kumar as well as the learned PPs for the CBI and the learned APP for State, the applications are rejected with liberty to the applicants to renew their requests if the trial does not conclude within a period of three months. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)