Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Several judgments affirm that anticipatory bail applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C. are maintainable before the Special Court constituted under the POCSO Act, especially when offences under the POCSO Act are involved ["Somashekar S/o Shekar Pujari VS State By Rural Police Station Authorities - Karnataka"], ["JOLLY THOMAS vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"], ["JOLLY THOMAS vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"].
Jurisdiction and procedural aspects:
An application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed before a Sessions Court or other courts when the offence is under POCSO is generally dismissed as not maintainable due to statutory bars, such as Section 438(4), which prohibits anticipatory bail in certain offences under POCSO ["JOLLY THOMAS vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"], ["JOLLY THOMAS vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"], ["JOLLY THOMAS vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"].
Bar to anticipatory bail in certain cases:
The courts have emphasized that due to the mandatory provisions of the POCSO Act and specific statutory bars, applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C. are generally not maintainable in cases involving sexual offences against children ["JOLLY THOMAS vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"].
Conclusion:
References:- ["Additional Registrar General Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai v. NIL. - Madras"]- ["Somashekar S/o Shekar Pujari VS State By Rural Police Station Authorities - Karnataka"]- ["JOLLY THOMAS vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"]- ["Mohd. Aarif Alias Aarif VS State Of U. P. - Allahabad"]- ["Rajendra Vishwakarma @ Rajendra Sharma VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"]- ["Deepak Prakash Singh @ Deepak Singh v. State of UP - Allahabad"]- ["JOLLY THOMAS vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"]- ["JOLLY THOMAS vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"]- ["JOLLY THOMAS vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"]
In high-stakes cases involving child sexual offenses, securing anticipatory bail can be crucial for the accused. But what happens when the charges fall under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012? A common query arises: Is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) maintainable before a POCSO Court? This question often confuses litigants and practitioners, as it touches on the specialized jurisdiction of POCSO Special Courts.
This blog post breaks down the legal position, drawing from key judgments and statutory provisions. Note: This is general information based on judicial precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Section 438 CrPC allows a person apprehending arrest to seek anticipatory bail from the High Court or Court of Session. However, special statutes like the POCSO Act create exclusive jurisdiction for designated Special Courts to handle offenses under the Act. These courts are empowered to ensure child-friendly, speedy trials, which extends to bail matters.
The main legal finding is clear: Section 438 CrPC applications are not maintainable before regular criminal courts, including Sessions Courts, in POCSO cases. Instead, they must be filed before the POCSO Special Court, which holds exclusive jurisdiction over such applications, even before FIR registration. In Re: The Additional Registrar General, Madurai Bench VS . - 2020 0 Supreme(Mad) 2351In Re: The Additional Registrar General, Madurai Bench VS . - 2020 0 Supreme(Mad) 2311
The POCSO Act designates Special Courts with exclusive jurisdiction over offenses under the Act, including bail applications. As held in key judgments:
When the Special Court exercising the exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the offences under the POCSO Act, the same Court also has the power to deal with the application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., even before registering the First Information Report. In Re: The Additional Registrar General, Madurai Bench VS . - 2020 0 Supreme(Mad) 2351
This empowers the Special Court to entertain anticipatory bail pleas at the pre-cognizance stage, aligning with the Act's goal of swift, child-centric procedures. Regular Sessions Courts are expressly excluded:
The regular Sessions Court cannot deal with the application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., in respect of any offence under the POCSO Act at any point of time. In Re: The Additional Registrar General, Madurai Bench VS . - 2020 0 Supreme(Mad) 2351
The rationale stems from the POCSO Act's overriding provisions, ensuring centralized handling by specialized forums. In a landmark decision, the court confirmed that anticipatory bail pleas in POCSO cases before regular Sessions Courts are not maintainable. In Re: The Additional Registrar General, Madurai Bench VS . - 2020 0 Supreme(Mad) 2351
This mirrors principles in other special laws, such as the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). For instance:
If that be so, the present application filed under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail is not maintainable. JOLLY THOMAS vs STATE OF KERALA - 2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 65598
These parallels underscore how special statutes curtail regular CrPC remedies to protect vulnerable groups.
For hybrid cases (e.g., POCSO + IPC), the Special Court retains primacy, but courts assess prima facie cases carefully. Aniket, s/o. Shahadev Labade VS State of Maharashtra, through Ahmednagar Police Station, Ahmednagar - 2023 Supreme(Bom) 1608
Judgments reinforce exclusivity:
These rulings emphasize judicial discipline in respecting statutory forums.
In summary, Section 438 CrPC anticipatory bail is not maintainable before regular Sessions Courts in POCSO cases due to the exclusive jurisdiction of POCSO Special Courts. This ensures efficient, specialized handling aligned with child protection goals. In Re: The Additional Registrar General, Madurai Bench VS . - 2020 0 Supreme(Mad) 2351In Re: The Additional Registrar General, Madurai Bench VS . - 2020 0 Supreme(Mad) 2311
Key Takeaways:- File solely before POCSO Special Court, even pre-FIR.- Regular courts lack jurisdiction; applications will be dismissed.- Special Acts like POCSO prioritize victim-centric procedures over general CrPC provisions.
Stay informed on evolving jurisprudence, as courts continue interpreting these balances. For personalized guidance, engage a legal expert familiar with POCSO proceedings.
References:1. In Re: The Additional Registrar General, Madurai Bench VS . - 2020 0 Supreme(Mad) 2351: Core judgment on exclusive Special Court jurisdiction.2. In Re: The Additional Registrar General, Madurai Bench VS . - 2020 0 Supreme(Mad) 2311: Reinforces exclusion of regular courts.3. Other cited cases for contextual parallels.
#POCSOBail #CrPC438 #AnticipatoryBail
However, S.31 of the POCSO Act opens with, "Save as otherwise provided in this Act". A careful reading of POCSO Act would go to show that, there is no provision under the POCSO Act specifically excluding S.438 of Cr.P.C., before the Special Court. ... Hence, S.31 of the POCSO Act is clear and unambiguous that the provisions of S.438 of Cr.P.C., are very much applicable to the Special Court. ... 20. ... In view of the foregoing discussions, it is cl....
438/439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, as the case may be." ... Under the circumstances, I hold that in cases where the offences punishable under the provisions of these two special enactments viz., Atrocities Act and POCSO Act are invoked, a petition under Section 439 Cr.PC before the High Court is maintainable. ... as well as the POCSO Act, either the Special Court constituted under Atrocities Act or the Special Court constituted under the POCSO Ac....
Act, since remedy of appeal is provided against an order of grant or refusal of bail, the application under Section 438 or 439 of Cr.P.C. was not maintainable. In support of her submissions, reliance was placed on amendment to Section 18 and newly introduced Section 18-A of the S.C. & S.T. Act. ... His application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. for short) was turned down by Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar vide order dated 17/6/2023. He, therefore, preferred application under Section 438#HL_END....
Thus, the preliminary objection of the learned counsel for the applicant that in the POCSO Act proceedings of complaint case is not maintainable has no substance. 16. ... To give the strengthen to his submissions for the procedure under Section 19 of the POCSO Act, learned counsel for the applicant drew the attention of the Court to the procedure of Section 21 (1) of the POCSO Act. ... Learned counsel for the applicant raises the preliminary objection that the POCSO Court#HL_....
When the matter was taken up for arguments, I have also expressed the same view that the application filed under section 438 of the Cr.P.C.is not maintainable. Hence the petitioner's counsel has expressed the willingness of the petitioner to surrender before the concerned court. ... If that be so, the present application filed under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail is not maintainable. 3. ... The petitioner has approached the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta for the ....
If that be so, the present application filed under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail is not maintainable. 3. ... When the matter was taken up for arguments, I have also expressed the same view that the application filed under section 438 of the Cr.P.C.is not maintainable. Hence the petitioner's counsel has expressed the willingness of the petitioner to surrender before the concerned court. ... The petitioner has approached the Sessions Court, Pathan....
application under Section 439 of the Code would alone be maintainable before the High Court." ... While considering the legal issue raised before this Court, it is to be borne in mind that if the provisions of POCSO Act would prevail then the appellants are entitled to challenge the summoning order passed by Special Court constituted under POCSO Act by adopting normal course and the procedure provided ... (ii) Whether an order declining bail to an accused passed by the Special #HL_STA....
In view of above, this Court is of the view that this application is not maintainable, as there exist a bar under Section 438(4) of the Cr.P.C. 9. ... Sarma further submits that as there are sufficient materials against the present applicant, this anticipatory bail application is not maintainable, in view of Section 438(4) of the Cr.P.C. 6. ... 107/2023, under Sections 365/376(3)/506 of the IPC read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, this application under Section 438....
of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) and Section 376 I.P.C. should be added. ... Therefore, the impugned order dated 11.01.2024 whereby the court added Sections 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 of POCSO Act on the application of the prosecution filed under Section 216 Cr.P.C. The Apex Court in the case in re: P. ... In such circumstances, when the application preferred by the appellant itself before the trial court was not maintainable, it was not incumbent up....
At the very outset, learned APP submits that the petition for anticipatory bail is not maintainable under Section 438(3) Cr. ... Considering the specific bar as contained in Section Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60415 of 2019(2) dt.26-09-2019 2/2 438(3) Cr. P.C. ... The petitioner apprehends his arrest for the offences alleged under Section 376/4 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, registered in connection with Special (POCSO) Case No. 29 of 20....
It is accordingly submitted that, learned Court below was an error in holding that the appellant's application under Section 438 Cr.PC was not maintainable.
6. The petitioner herein aged about 17 years claiming to be a juvenile, filed an application under Section - 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail before the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad, and the same was returned with the following objections: “1) This petition is filed u/s.438 Cr.P.C. by the counsel for petitioner/accused for the offence u/s.354 IPC, 7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act in Cr.175/21 of PS. The petitioner is the mother of accused who’s aged about 17 yrs.
In Varun Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2011 Crl.L.J. 675, it has been held that where chain of events is doubtful, no conviction can be based and it is settled legal proposition that in a case of circumstantial evidence there must be complete chain of events which would lead to a conclusion that the accused was the only person, who could have committed the offence and none-else. State of Delhi, 2012 (2) J.C.C. 1457 (Delhi) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that once it is found that circumstance could not point out towards guilt of accused, without any other inference being probable....
In Musheer Khan alias Badsah Khan vs. State of Madya Pradesh, (2010) 2 SCC 748 it has been observed that in cases of circumstantial evidence complete chain of circumstances must be looked and snapped or scattered links is not enough to convict. In Jiten Besra v. State of West Bengal, (2010) 2 S.C.C. (Cr.) 438 and in Kamla Devi vs. State of Delhi, 2012 (2) J.C.C. 1457 (Delhi) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that once it is found that circumstance could not point out towards guilt of accused, without any other inference being probable, the accused must get the benefit ....
In fact, the recourse was available to them to apply either before High Court by filing IInd anticipatory bail, or before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, however, without having any substantial change in the circumstances, grant of anticipatory bail by Additional Sessions Judge, is not permissible. 1 and 2 by the Trial Court under Section 438 of Cr.PC, and by the High Court, the second bail application under Section 438, Cr.PC ought not to be entertained and granted by ASJ, Barwah. In support of his contention reliance has been placed on a judgment of Full Bench consisting of fi....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
