SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 3890

PATNA HIGH COURT
PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
Sunil Kumar and Anr. – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Bihar – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.63 of 2016 | CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 68 of 2016 | CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 281 of 2016 | CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 2696 of 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Smt. Anuradha Singh, Adv., Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Adv., Mr. Sunil Kumar, Adv., Mr. Anirudh Kumar Sinha, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Z.Hoda, APP, Mr. Abhay Kumar, APP, Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, APP, Mr. Anita Kumari Singh, APP

Court mandates protection of victim's identity in cases related to POCSO Act and SC & ST Act.

Headnote:The judgment pertains to appeals concerning convictions under the POCSO Act and SC & ST Act. The court determined the necessity to shield the identity of the informant-victim for privacy protection, appointing them as respondent No.2 without public disclosure of their details. Issues included ensuring the informant-victim's privacy in court documentation and compliance with statutory obligations regarding case procedures. The court reaffirmed that the victim's identity protection is mandatory per procedure, thereby issuing directions for implementation accordingly. The matter is adjourned to 13.03.2026 for further proceedings.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR ORAL ORDER

5 16-01-2026 Learned counsels for the appellants are directed to implead the informant-victim as party respondent No.2 in the array of the parties in the memo of appeals within one week.

2. Let notice be issued to newly added respondent No.2 through registered cover with A/D as well as the ordinary process for which requisites etc. must be filed within two weeks.

3. From perusal of the record, it transpires that the matter relates to conviction in which the appellants have been convicted under the POCSO Act and SC & ST Act. Hence, as per prevailing norms, name of the victim-informant and parentage thereof, so impleaded as respondent No.2, is not required to be depicted in the records placed in the public domain as the requirement of marking the description of informant-victim is not imperative.

4. Having regard to the law and the subject matter, herein, the Registry is directed to mask and cover up the particulars of the respondent No.2 (informant- victim) and depict as ‘X’. The name and detail thereof shall be depicted in a sheet of paper sealed in envelop and mapped along with the records of the present case.

5. Let the matter be placed on 13.03.2026 under the same heading.

(Praveen Kumar, J)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top