20 hrs ago

Allahabad High Court Requires Victim Hearing in POCSO Bail Cases

Allahabad High Court Requires Victim Hearing in POCSO Bail Cases
No anticipatory bail plea to be heard in POCSO cases without hearing victim: Allahabad High Court · indianexpress.com

A court had given two people accused in a case involving a child permission to seek bail before arrest.

The child’s family said they were not given a proper chance to speak before that decision.

The Allahabad High Court agreed that the victim or guardian should have been heard.

It cancelled the earlier bail decision because that important step was missed.

The court sent the applications back to be considered again.

The victim and the state must have a fair chance to be heard this time.

If the victim cannot afford a lawyer, the court must provide one.

The accused cannot face coercive action for six weeks while the trial court reconsiders the applications.

Key facts

High Court judge
Justice Vivek Kumar Singh
Case location
Bulandshahr district, Uttar Pradesh
Initial case filing
February 6, 2023
Bail decision challenged
The Special Judge (POCSO Act) had granted anticipatory bail to two accused.
High Court finding
The victim or guardian was not given an opportunity to be heard before bail was granted.
Directions on reconsideration
Notify the victim, allow reasonable time for objections, and hear the victim and the state before deciding the applications afresh.
Interim protection
The accused were protected from coercive action for six weeks.

Quotes

Justice Vivek Kumar Singh

Allahabad High Court judge who decided the matter

“The learned trial court completely overlooked the mandatory requirement of issuing notice to the victim/informant before considering the anticipatory bail application under the POCSO Act. This failure has caused grave prejudice to the victim depriving her of the right to present material facts, gravity of offence and apprehensions regarding safety.”
indianexpress.com
“This Court finds this argument misconceived. There is a clear legal distinction between cancellation of bail due to supervening circumstances such as tampering with evidence or breaching conditions and setting aside the order granting bail on account of perversity, non-application of mind, or patent procedural illegality.”
indianexpress.com

Sources

Related news