New Delhi, Sep 1 (IANS): The Delhi High Court has taken action to address a "non-reasoned" order issued by a trial court judge granting bail to a person accused under the stringent Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, directing an explanation be sought from the judge in question.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee directed the high court's Registrar, Vigilance, to seek an explanation from the trial court judge concerned regarding the reasons for issuing the non-reasoned order.
The report containing the explanation will be placed before the Inspecting Judges Committee of this court for consideration within one week.
The high court’s decision came after it set aside the trial court's order granting bail to a man accused of raping a 3-year-old girl in 2021.
Justice Banerjee expressed dissatisfaction with the trial court's decision, noting that bail had been granted in a purely mechanical manner without a clear expression of opinion or the application of judicial reasoning to the facts and merits of the case.
According to the judge, such a decision contradicts the essential requirements for granting bail, especially in cases involving offences under Section(s) 342/354/354-B/363 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 10 of the POCSO Act.
The court described the impugned order as "unreasonable, cryptic, ambiguous" and contrary to established legal principles articulated by the apex court and various high courts across the country. The judge stressed on the importance of handling proceedings under the POCSO Act with utmost care and precaution, particularly when considering bail applications.
It noted that factors such as the victim's age, the age difference between the victim and the accused, the severity of the offence, and the proximity of their residences should all be taken into account when granting bail in POCSO cases.
Recognising the judicial significance of the matter, the high court directed that a copy of its order be sent to all concerned Principal District & Sessions Judges through the Registrar General of the court for their information and compliance, with the aim of enhancing the administration of justice in such cases.