DINESH YADAV Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Proceedings of this matter have been taken-up through video conferencing.

(2.) This is the first bail application filed on behalf of the applicant for grant of bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with Crime No.212/2019, registered at Police Station Pithoura, Distt. Mahasamund, for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) of the IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, 'the POCSO Act').

(3.) When the matter is taken-up for final hearing, on being asked to learned counsel for the applicant as to whether notice to the victim / informant would be necessary before hearing the application for grant of bail in view of the amendment incorporated in the provision contained in Section 439(1A) of the CrPC, Mr. Sunil Sahu, learned counsel for the applicant, would submit that though the applicant is charged with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, but under Section 439(1A) of the CrPC, offences under the POCSO Act have not been included and even under the provisions of the POCSO Act, there is no such provision like Section 15A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the SC-ST Act') i.e. rights of victims and witnesses, therefore, notice to the victim or the complainant or the informant would not be necessary, whereas, Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, learned State counsel, would submit that the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in the matter of Badri Nath v. Union Territory of J&K, Bail App No.139/2020, decided on 11-12-2020 has held that issuance of notice to the informant in an application for grant of bail to an accused charged under the POCSO Act would be necessary considering the nature and gravity of offence under the POCSO Act.