The Allahabad High Court held that failing to hear a POCSO Act victim before granting anticipatory bail renders the order void ab initio due to a jurisdictional defect. The ruling underscores the mandatory nature of victim participation under the POCSO Act and its Rules.
Victim's Right to Hearing Under POCSO Act Upheld
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has held that an order granting anticipatory bail to an accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, without issuing notice or hearing the victim, is void ab initio and suffers from a jurisdictional defect. The decision in Veer Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others clarifies the mandatory procedural safeguards owed to child victims in sexual offence cases.
Statutory Duty to Hear Victim
Justice Vivek Kumar Singh observed that Section 14 of the POCSO Act, read with Rule 18 of the POCSO Rules, mandates that notice must be issued to the victim or informant before any application for anticipatory bail is entertained. The Court emphasized that this is not a mere procedural formality but a statutory command designed to ensure the victim’s voice is integral to pre-trial bail decisions.
"The failure to issue notice and hear the victim renders the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge legally unsustainable and jurisdictionally flawed,"
the Court stated, reinforcing the victim’s rights under the scheme of the Act.
This ruling has immediate implications for criminal practitioners handling POCSO cases. Courts across jurisdictions must now ensure compliance with the notice and hearing mandate before entertaining anticipatory bail applications. Non-compliance will expose such orders to being set aside in revision or challenge under Article 226. Legal practitioners should ensure that victim representation is formally recorded in all such proceedings.
Citations
- Veer Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others
