Last Updated on August 7, 2021 by Administrator
In the case of Rohit v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko, the Allahabad High Court considered two questions:
- Whether the complainant or any other person on behalf of the child victim can be made a party to the proceedings
- If such a person is made an opposite party, how would the Court ensure that the identity of child is not disclosed to the public.
The court observed that in cases of sexual offence, it is mandatory for the informant or any person authorized by him to be present at the time of hearing of the bail application as per sub-section (1-A) of Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
The Court also said “It is required to ensure that the SJUP or the local police informs the family or guardian of the child and also provide them legal assistance as required with regard to all proceedings, including the bail applications filed by the accused. Thus, it is necessary to implead the complainant, and in case the complainant is not a family member or guardian of the child, then the family member or guardian of the child as opposite party along with the complainant in the bail applications filed before this Court”
With regards to the second question, the court made a reference to Section 33(7) of the POCSO Act and directed “Notice in every case shall be served through Investigating Officer/ S.H.O. of the Police Station concerned upon such complainant and/or parent/guardian of the child”
