ROHIT Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant Sri Piyush Kumar Singh, Sri Anurag Verma, Sri Jayant Singh Tomar and Sri Shaunak Singh learned AGA for the State and Sri Rahul Kumar Singh as amicus curiae, who has also assisted the Court by placing relevant laws before the Court.

(2.) The present bail application is filed by the accused-applicant-Rohit, who is involved in F.I.R./Case Crime No.0091 of 2021, under Ss. 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. and Ss. 3 /4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), Police Station-Achalganj, District-Unnao.

(3.) In this bail application, the applicant had initially impleaded the complainant by name as opposite party no.2. The Registry while reporting raised an objection that the complainant is made a party and, thus, learned counsel for the applicant deleted the name of the complainant as opposite party no.2. Therefore, two questions arose before the Court for consideration; (i) whether the complainant or any person on behalf the child victim is to be made a party to the proceedings; and (ii) if any such person is to be made opposite party in the bail application, what should be the mode of service upon such a person, as the Court is required to ensure that the identity of the child victim is not disclosed at any time during the course of investigation or trial.