RAMU RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner -complainant against the order dated 6.4.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions judge, Nagaur in Bail Application No. 104/2013 whereby, the learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted the bail application filed by the respondent No.2 in connection with FIR No. 15/2013 registered at the Police Station, Khinwsar for the offences under Sections 363, 376/120 -B, 341, 342, 447, 451, 323 and 143 IPC to which the offences under Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act were added subsequently.

(2.) SHRI Mukesh Mehariya learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urged that amongst the offences for which the case was being investigated, the offence under Sections 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 was also included. He submitted that the victim being a 13 years old child of the petitioner as subjected to forcible rape by the accused in this case. Her date of birth is 27.7.2000. Learned counsel submitted that in view 6f the fact that the case was being investigated for the offence under the PSCSO Act, the learned additional Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the bail application. Learned counsel submitted that the preamble of the POCSO Act mentions that the act was enacted in order to protect children from offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment and pornography and provides for establishment of Special Courts for trial of such offences and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Learned counsel submitted that as per Chapter VII of the POCSO Act, which came into force on 19.6.2012, the State Government has been put under a mandate to constitute Special Courts for the trial of the cases covered under this Act. Learned counsel submitted that after the act came into force, any Court other than the Special Court constituted under the POCSO Act as divested of the jurisdiction to deal with any application in relation to such case. He submitted that the Police presented the accused for remand in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur rejected the bail application filed by the accused on 29.3.2013 though he had no jurisdiction to entertain such bail application. ThereafteV, the accused challenged the rejection of his bail application by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur by filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur, who accepted the bail application filed by the accused. Learned counsel submitted that only a Sessions Court can be designated to be a Special Court as per Section 28 of the Act. He submitted that in view of this undisputed and unchallengeable legal scenario, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur acted absolutely beyond his jurisdiction in entertaining and accepting the bail application filed by the accused in this case. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed that the misc. petition be accepted and the order dated 6.4.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur whereby, the bail application filed by the accused was allowed, should be quashed.

(3.) THIS Court issued notice to the Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court for answering the query as to whether any Special Court had been constituted for the Merta Judgeship on the relevant date.