Madhya Pradesh High Court Asks State Govt To Take Measures To Publicise POCSO Act Provisions As Per Mandate Of S. 43

Recently, while allowing a second bail application filed by an accused in a POCSO case, Madhya Pradesh High Court directed the Government Advocate to bring Section 43 of the POCSO Act, 2012 to the notice of the state government for compliance.

The single-judge bench of Justice Vishal Dhagat gave the above direction after the counsel for the accused/applicant drew the court's attention to the lackadaisical attitude of the Central and State Governments in publicising the relevant provisions of the 2012 Act.

Section 43 of the POCSO Act explicitly states that governments should take measures to widely publicise the provisions of the Act through media so that young individuals as well as parents are well informed about the legal amplitude of the statute.

The counsel submitted that the government should be directed to comply with Section 43 since no affirmative action has been taken so far, and the bench sitting at Jabalpur made an observation to that effect.

“Government Advocate appearing for State is directed to bring Section 43 into the notice of State Govt. so that appropriate action be taken by the State Govt. for compliance of Section 43 of POCSO Act. Copy of order be supplied”, the court noted in the order.

The applicant in this case was accused of offences punishable under Sections 363, 506, 376 (2) (N) and 366 of I.P.C. and 5(L)/6 of the POCSO Act. The applicant's counsel submitted that the prosecutrix is over 17 years old and the applicant is now 24 years old. According to the applicant, the prosecutrix was a consenting party.

The court allowed the bail application since all material witnesses have been examined in this case. Moreover, the applicant has been incarcerated since 04.10.2022. Since there is no further possibility of influencing the witnesses, the applicant/accused was released on bail provided that he furnished a personal bond to the tune of Rs 50,000/- along with one solvent surety in the like amount. During the period that the applicant is enlarged on bail, he is also required to abide by the conditions encapsulated in Section 437(3) of CrPC.

Advocate Amitabh Gupta appeared for the applicant. D.K Paroha represented the state as a government advocate and Advocate Raman Choubey appeared for the objector.

Case Title: Pankaj v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

Case No: Misc. Criminal Case No. 54721 of 2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (MP)

Click Here To Read/ Download Order