THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.14135 of 2025

ORAL ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to set aside and cancel the bail granted to respondent No.2/accused by order dated 14.10.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.5175 of 2025 in Crime No.344 of 2025 by the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under the POCSO Act-cum-XII Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

2. Heard Sri L. Harish, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent–State and Sri P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2/accused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.2/accused, who is the father of the victim, committed the alleged offences in the above crime. He was remanded to judicial custody on 20.09.2025. Subsequently, the accused filed a bail application vide Crl.M.P.No.5175 of

2025 before the trial Court, which was allowed on 14.10.2025. He contended that the said order was passed without serving notice to the victim and in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 40 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. Therefore, he prayed the Court that the bail granted by the trial Court be cancelled and the matter be remanded to the trial Court for rehearing, after issuing mandatory notice to the victim.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2/accused submitted that the trial Court granted bail after duly considering all facts and circumstances, and hence, there is no illegality in the impugned order. He contended that mere non-service of notice to the victim cannot be a ground for cancellation of bail and that it is the duty of the prosecution, not the accused, to ensure service of notice. He further submitted that the case arises out of marital disputes and that respondent No.2 has been falsely implicated. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that notice was not served on the victim, who is entitled to such mandatory notice under the POCSO Act. Hence, he prayed the Court that the bail granted to respondent No.2 be cancelled and consequently prayed the Court to pass appropriate orders.

6. In light of the submissions made by both sides and upon perusal of the material on record, it is evident that no notice was served on the victim prior to the grant of bail. Even the learned counsel for respondent No.2/accused does not dispute this fact. The mandatory requirement under Section 40 of the POCSO Act was therefore not complied with. 7. Accordingly, the order dated 14.10.2025 passed in Crl.M.P. No.5175 of 2025 by the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under the POCSO Act-cum-XII Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad granting bail to respondent No.2/accused is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial Court with a direction to rehear Crl.M.P. No.5175 of 2025 after duly serving notice on the victim in accordance with law. Respondent No.2/accused is directed to surrender before the trial Court within one (1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to furnish the address of the victim to the prosecution or respondent No.2 so that the trial Court may issue notice to the said address through the Public Prosecutor.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

_______________

K. SUJANA, J Date: 13.11.2025 SAI THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.14135 of 2025 Date: 13.11.2025 SAI