Rajasthan High Court Questions Special POCSO Judge For Denying Bail To Man Not Named In Victim Statement
Live LawExpressing “anguish and pain” over denial of bail to a man not even named by the minor victim in her statement, the Rajasthan High Court has sought explanation from a Special POCSO Judge for his decision. The bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman opined that the increasing tendency of trial courts in rejecting bail petitions in a "casual and routine manner" even in appropriate cases was concerning and needed to stop as it not only increased agony of accused persons languishing in an overcrowded prison system of India but also increased burden on High Courts. Trial Courts functioning at the district level make up the very foundation of the Indian Judicial system which makes it even more important for the High Courts to not condone such practices of the Trial Courts.” The Court was hearing a bail application filed by the accused in a POCSO case and it was his argument that the bare perusal of the victim's statement made it clear that no allegations were levelled against him by the accused in her statement, neither was he even named in the same. “In my considered opining such a routine and causal approach should be deprecated particularly when Trial Court and High Court are exercising concurrent jurisdiction of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C..” In this background, the Court allowed the bail application of the applicant and sought explanation from the POCSO Judge on why he did not consider the statement of the victim given under Section 164, CrPC.