High Court Grants Bail to Accused in POCSO Case Due to Non-Compliance with Section 35 Mandate for Victim Examination. The court held that failure to examine the victim within 30 days under Section 35 of the POCSO Act entitles the accused to bail under Section 439 CrPC.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Accused
  • 25
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Sri Krishna V, filed a criminal petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking bail in Crime No.33/2019 registered at Kolar Women Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 363 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. The petitioner had previously filed Criminal Petition No.884/2020, which was disposed of on 14.02.2020 with liberty to renew the bail prayer after the examination of the victim before the Trial Court. The present petition was filed after the victim had not been examined. The court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. The court observed that under Section 35 of the POCSO Act, the Trial Court is required to examine the victim within 30 days from the date of taking cognizance of the offence. It was stated that the victim had not been examined as yet. In view of the earlier order and the statutory mandate, the court directed the Trial Court to examine the victim, preferably through video conference, within thirty days from the date of communication of the order. The court allowed the bail petition and ordered the release of the petitioner on bail subject to conditions, including executing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties, appearing before the court as directed, not tampering with evidence, and not leaving the jurisdiction without prior permission.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Bail - Section 439 CrPC - Mandatory Examination of Victim - Section 35 POCSO Act - The petitioner sought bail under Section 439 CrPC for offences under Sections 363, 376 IPC, Section 6 POCSO Act, and Section 9 Prohibition of Child Marriage Act. The court noted that the victim had not been examined within 30 days as mandated by Section 35 POCSO Act. Held that non-compliance with the statutory mandate entitles the petitioner to bail, subject to conditions. (Paras 2-4)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 CrPC when the victim has not been examined within the mandatory 30-day period under Section 35 of the POCSO Act.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail in Crime No.33/2019 of Kolar Women Police Station, subject to executing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties, appearing as directed, not tampering with evidence, and not leaving the jurisdiction without prior permission. The Trial Court is directed to examine the victim within 30 days from communication of this order.

Law Points

  • Bail under Section 439 CrPC
  • Mandatory examination of victim within 30 days under Section 35 POCSO Act
  • Non-compliance as ground for bail
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2020 LawText (KAR) (07) 102

Criminal Petition No.2860 of 2020

2020-07-13

Justice John Michael Cunha

M.R. Nanjunda Gowda (for petitioner), Thejesh P. (HCGP for respondent)

Sri Krishna V

The State of Karnataka

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal bail petition under Section 439 CrPC

Remedy Sought

Enlargement of the petitioner on bail in Crime No.33/2019

Filing Reason

Petitioner is facing charges under Sections 363, 376 IPC, Section 6 POCSO Act, and Section 9 Prohibition of Child Marriage Act; victim not examined within 30 days as mandated by Section 35 POCSO Act

Previous Decisions

Earlier order dated 14.02.2020 in Criminal Petition No.884/2020 reserved liberty to renew bail prayer after examination of victim

Issues

Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 CrPC when the victim has not been examined within the mandatory 30-day period under Section 35 of the POCSO Act.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the victim has not been examined before the Trial Court despite the statutory mandate under Section 35 POCSO Act. Respondent-State did not oppose the bail in view of the non-compliance.

Ratio Decidendi

Non-compliance with the mandatory requirement under Section 35 of the POCSO Act to examine the victim within 30 days from taking cognizance entitles the accused to bail under Section 439 CrPC.

Judgment Excerpts

In view of the mandate contained in section 35 of the POCSO Act, the Trial Court was required to examine the victim within 30 days from the date of taking cognizance of the offence. It is stated that the victim has not been examined before the Trial Court as yet.

Procedural History

The petitioner initially filed Criminal Petition No.884/2020 which was disposed of on 14.02.2020 with liberty to renew bail prayer after victim examination. Subsequently, the present petition was filed on 13.07.2020 as the victim had not been examined.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 439
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 363, 376
  • Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act): 6, 35
  • Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006: 9
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court Grants Bail to Accused in POCSO Case Due to Non-Compliance with Section 35 Mandate for Victim Examination. The court held that failure to examine the victim within 30 days under Section 35 of the POCSO Act entitles the accused to bail unde...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Directs Immediate Compensation to Complainant for Lost Muddemal Property - State Must Pay First, Recover from Erring Officials Later. The court held that the complainant cannot be made to wait for recovery from delinquent employees,...