1. The respondents are the accused in Crime No. 2 of 2017 of Chetlat Police Station registered for the offences under Sections 4, 6, 8 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short “the POCSO Act”) Section 376D read with Section 34 IPC.

2. The prosecution allegation is that the respondents committed penetrative sexual assault on the daughter of the de facto complainant aged 16 years at the house of the victim on so many occasions. The respondents were subsequently arrested. They were released on bail by the Assistant Sessions Court, Union Territory of Lakshadweep, Amini Island, as per Annexure - VIII order dated 21-3-2017 in Crl.M.P. No. 19/2017.

3. The petitioner filed this Crl. M.C. praying for cancellation of bail granted to the respondents as per Annexure -VIII order.

4. Heard.

5. It has been argued by the learned Standing Counsel for the Union Territory of Lakshadweep that the Assistant Sessions Court had no jurisdiction to grant bail to a person accused of having committed the offences under the POCSO Act, and in the said circumstances, Annexure-VIII order passed by the Assistant Sessions court cannot be sustained.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has argued that the Assistant Sessions Court had ample jurisdiction to grant bail to a person accused of having committed the offence under the POCSO Act, in view of Annexure - VI official memorandum dated 14-3-2017 which authorized the Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amini to deal with the POCSO matters during the absence of the Special Judge, Kavarathi under Section 10 (3) Cr.P.C. and in the said circumstances, Annexure-VIII order was perfectly justified.

7. Section 28 of the POCSO Act provides for designation of Special Courts for the trial of offences under the POCSO Act. For the sake of convenience, Section 28 of the POCSO Act is extracted hereunder:-

“Designation of Special Courts - (1) For the purpose of providing a speedy trial, the State Government shall in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court, by notification in the Official Gazette, designate for each district, a Court of Session to be a Special Court to try the offences under the Act.

Provided that if a Court of Session is notified as a children's Court under the Commissions for protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 (4 of 2006) or a Special Court designated for similar purposes under any other law for the time being in force, then, such court shall be deemed to be a Special Court under this Section.

(2) While trying an offence under this Act, a Special Court shall also try an offence [other than the offence referred to in sub-section (1)], with which the accused may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), be charged at the same trial.

3. The Special Court constituted under this Act, notwithstanding anything in the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000) shall have jurisdiction to try offences under Section 67B of that Act insofar as it relates to publication or transmission of sexually explicit material depicting children in any act, or conduct or manner or facilitates abuse of children online”.

8. Section 28 of the POCSO Act provides for designation of a Court of Session to be a special court in each district to try the offences under the POCSO Act.

The proviso to Section 28 provides that if a Court of Session is notified as a Children's Court under the Commission of Protection of Child Rights Act or if a Special Court is designated for similar purposes under any other law for the time being in force, then such court shall be deemed to be a special court to try the offences under the POCSO Act. Section 28 contemplates only one Special Court in every district. Therefore, if a Court of Session is notified to be a special court under Section 28 of the POCSO Act, that Court alone has jurisdiction to try the offences under the POCSO Act.

9. Section 32 (1) of the Act provides that the State Government s