THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 28.08.2025 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.02 of

2024 on the file of the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Nirmal.

2. Heard Mr.G. Vasantha Rayudu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Shalini Saxena, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the revisional court has committed an error in setting aside the orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhainsa. His case is that in the trial court the Magistrate has accepted the surrender of the petitioner-accused and has granted bail to him The accused is alleged to have committed an offence under Sections 354, 354D, 363, 506 IPC and 3(1)(2(i), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short ‘SC & ST Act’) and Section 11 read with 12 of the Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO Act’). The State has preferred a revision before the District and Sessions Judge, Nirmal whereupon the revision petition was allowed by setting aside the order of the trial court and further directed the accused to surrender before the trial court within 10 days. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present petition is filed. He therefore, prayed to set aside the orders of the revisional court and revive the orders of the trial court and to set the accused at liberty.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed submitting that the orders passed by the Sessions Court in the revision are bassed on a sound reasoning, and hence, it does not need any interference.

Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The record discloses that the offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 354, 354D, 363, 506 IPC and 3(1)(2(i), 3(2)(va) of SC & ST and Section 11 read with 12 of the POCSO Act. The offences under Sections 354, 354D, 363, 506 IPC are punishable with imprisonment of below 7 years, but the offences under Sections 3(1)(2(i), 3(2)(va) of ST & ST Act and Section 11 read with 12 of the POCSO Act are heinous offences. When the accused was surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhainsa, by filing a petition under Section 431 Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate has accepted the petition and released the accused on bail subject to certain conditions. In such a situation, the learned Magistrate ought to have seen that once the surrender is accepted, the provisions of SC & ST Act and POCSO Act would come into picture and therefore, issuance of notice is mandatory to the victim and the Public Prosecutor. It is only after serving the notice on the victim and the Public Prosecutor, the Magistrate could have arrived at a decision. But, in the present case, the accused was set at liberty by granting bail without serving any notice on the Public Prosecutor or the victim.

7. Section 15A (3) of the SC & ST Act reads as under:

15A. Rights of victims and witnesses.—

(1) xxx (2) xxx (3) A victim or his dependent shall have the right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any Court proceeding including any bail proceeding and the Special Public Prosecutor or the State Government shall inform the victim about any proceedings under this Act.”

8. Thus, serving notice under Section 15(a) of the SC & ST Act is mandatory, which is violated by the learned Magistrate. When there is such a violation, the order passed by the learned Magistrate needs to be set aside and the revisional court has done the same. Thus, there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Nirmal, and hence, the same are upheld. Thus, the petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

9. The Criminal Petition is dismissed confirming the order dated 28.08.2025 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.02 of

2024 on the file of the Principal District & Sessions Judge,