Back
Slams in Serving POCSO to Victims' Guardians
Court Warns: Repeated Violations of Delay Hearings and Infringe
The has taken a stern stance against the persistent failure of authorities to properly serve notices to the parents or guardians of victims in cases under the . Justice Sandeep Shah, while hearing two bail applications, criticized the "" that has led to routine delays in adjudication, directly impacting the of accused individuals.
The Court directed the Director General of Police, Rajasthan; the Principal Secretary, ; and the Member Secretary of the to ensure that all police stations, public prosecutors, and stakeholders statewide comply strictly with the laid down in the earlier case of .
A Notice Without Identity or Time
The catalyst for the Court's ire was a notice submitted by the Public Prosecutor in one of the bail applications. The document, dated , was meant to confirm that the victim's guardian had been informed about the filing of the bail plea. However, the notice bore only a signature at the bottom—no name of the person who received it, and no date or time of receipt.
"This reflects the
of authorities,"
the Court observed, noting that such incomplete documentation makes a mockery of the
meant to protect victims' rights.
Guidelines Already in Place, Yet Ignored
The Court referred to its detailed order of in , which prescribed a clear protocol: immediately upon filing a under the POCSO Act, the applicant's counsel must serve a copy to the Public Prosecutor. The prosecutor then sends it to the Investigating Officer or Station House Officer (SHO), who must convey the information to the victim's parents or guardians within two days. The service must be in writing, and the receipt must include the recipient's name, signature, and the specific date and time of delivery.
Despite these explicit directions, Justice Shah noted that
"day in and day out, in cases pertaining to offences under the POCSO Act, the manner of service continues to be improper."
He added that matters are repeatedly listed before the Court only for directions to issue fresh notices, causing endless
.
Delay in Hearings: A Blow to Liberty
The Court highlighted a cascading effect: because of improper or delayed service, bail applications are not heard promptly, and accused persons remain in custody longer than necessary.
"The
of the accused-applicants is kept in the dock due to the
of the directions,"
the judgment stated.
Additionally, the Court observed that in many cases, no one appears on behalf of the victim, suggesting that the SHO concerned is not supplying the to the or RALSA to ensure the victim's family receives legal assistance—another requirement laid down in the Sandeep Singh guidelines.
A Directive for Statewide Compliance
To address the systemic failure, the Court ordered the DGP, the Principal Secretary of Law, and the Member Secretary of RALSA to take immediate note and issue fresh guidelines to all stakeholders across Rajasthan, in line with the Sandeep Singh judgment. The was directed to send copies of both the present order and the Sandeep Singh order to these authorities for necessary compliance.
In the cases at hand, the Court directed the Public Prosecutor to serve a fresh notice strictly adhering to the prescribed format, and listed the matters for further hearing after one week.
This ruling serves as a strong reminder that procedural compliance is not a mere formality but a cornerstone of , especially in sensitive cases involving child victims.
