POCSO Act | “Lethargic Attitude” Of Authorities In Serving Bail Notices Delays Hearings, Affects Liberty Of Accused: Rajasthan High Court

While hearing a bail application in a POCSO case, Rajasthan High Court observed that despite there being detailed guidelines, the manner of service regarding the intimation of bail application to the parents/guardians of the victim, continued to be improper, reflecting "lethargic attitude" of the authorities.

The bench of Justice Sandeep Shah opined that due to non-sending of information to the parents/guardians immediately after filing of the bail application or due to improper service, there was a delay in adjudication of such bail application which affected the personal liberty of the accused.

The Court thus directed the Director General of Police, Rajasthan; Principle Secretary, Department of Law and Legal Affairs, and the Member Secretary, RSLA, to take note of the situation, and ensure issuance of guidelines by all the police stations, public prosecutors, and other stakeholders throughout Rajasthan to follow the prescribed guidelines.

For context, the Court was hearing bail applications in relation to a POCSO Case, in which it was observed that the notice which was allegedly issued to the parents/guardians of the victim, to inform them about the filed bail application, only bore the signatures without any name of the person, and did not even bear any date/time as to when it was received.

The Court referred to the case of Sandeep Singh alias Sonu v State of Rajasthan in which the Court had specified the details to be mentioned in the notice and the manner in which the service was to be effected.

As per the guidelines, immediately upon filing of the bail application or any other application under POCSO Act, applicant's counsel shall serve a copy to the Public prosecutor who shall immediately send that to the IO/SHO, for sending information to the parents/guardians of the victim, preferably within two days of receipt by the IO/SHO.

Further, it prescribed that the officer shall ensure that the receipt of such notice bore name/signature of the person receiving the same, and after effective service, the details shall be immediately sent to the Public prosecutor for placing on record in the court.

After perusing these guidelines, the Court held that despite these guidelines, “day in and day out”, in POCSO cases, the manner of service was improper, and adjudication was delayed.

“Further, the non-representation of anyone on behalf of the victim in many cases reflects that even the copy of the paper book is not being supplied by the SHO concerned to the DSLA or RLSA to ensure assistance of legal counsel to the family members of the victim, as directed in para 39(iv) by this Court in Sandeep Singh…”

In this light, the Court made the aforementioned directions to the DGP, Rajasthan; Principal Secretary, Department of Law and Legal Affairs, and the Member Secretary, RALSA.