Rajasthan High Court Questions Special POCSO Judge For Denying Bail To Man Not Named In Victim Statement

Expressing “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.

“Denying such a right in a routine manner even in appropriate cases amounts to failure of the courts in performing the sacrosanct judicial function, which is the paramount feature of the judicial system in this country. 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. Despite that, his bail application was rejected.

After hearing the contentions, the Court aligned with the argument put forth by the applicant and held that generally in sexual offences, the victim was considered as the star prosecution witness and victim's statement under Section 164, CrPC, had an important effect on the decision in a criminal case which could not be ignored. Hence, the Court expressed surprise over the Trial Court not taking the statement into consideration while deciding the bail application.

“To my utter surprise and dismay, learned Special Judge further proceeded to observe in the order dated 30.08.2024 that after framing of charge, evidence of important prosecution witnesses are to be recorded, which means the court concerned has already premeditated his mind not to consider arguments advances on behalf of the petitioner on the point of charge and thereby not discharging him in any case whether he has strong case in his favour. Such type of observations are totally uncalled for.”

The Court further opined that every arrest was a relief and pain which had to be justified based on evidence and closely scrutinized by all supervisory authorities including judiciary. It held that arrest/ detention had many psychological impacts especially in light of overcrowded prison system of Indian in which accused were ill-treated and deprived of basic human needs.

The Court observed that all these factors highlighted the importance of bail and judiciary in protecting everyone's rights. It reiterated the Supreme Court's emphasis on bail being the rule and jail being the exception, and stated that despite this, Trial Courts were declining bail applications in a casual manner that was in turn overloading the High Courts.

“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. (483 BNSS).”

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.

Title: Ramesh v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 8

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): Mr. Lakhan Singh Jadoun

Counsel for the Respondent(s): Mr. Amit Punia, PP

Click Here To Read/Download Order