By Jeevak Mukherjee

The Orissa High Court has decided that notifying the informant or victim of the decision to refuse a bail plea in a POCSO case is not required. Judge Savitri Ratho stated that although it is normally desired to hear concerns from the informant or victim before granting release, there is no obligation for such notification if the court decides against providing bail. This is in accordance with the intended objectives of the POCSO Act and associated rules. This decision was made in a case where it was claimed that the accused—the victim’s grandfather—had slept with her. In his defense, the accused cited the victim’s mother as the informant’s regular source of false claims and his physical impairment. In particular, when POCSO Act offences were implicated, the court discussed whether notice to the victim, informant, or guardian was required prior to hearing a bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. The court emphasised that notice to the informant or victim is not necessary if the accused is found not deserving of bail, but it is important to issue notice in order to achieve the goals of the POCSO Act. But if they don’t show up after being informed, the court can move forward as it sees fit. The court concluded that although it is acceptable to deny bail without informing the victim or informant, they must be given an opportunity to be heard before release is granted. As a result, a merit-based hearing before the designated Bench was set for the bail application.

Case: Chhabila Nayak @ Chhabi vs. State of Odisha & Ors, Orissa High Court

Citation: BLAPL No. 12411 of 2023

Click here to view/download judgement