On Wednesday, July 3, the Supreme Court severely criticized the State of Uttar Pradesh for failing to promptly comply with its previous directive to have the victim examined in a POCSO trial. If the State failed to address the major errors within a week, the Court threatened to request a response from the Home Secretary.
The State Counsel’s motion to postpone a bail proceeding for a month was met with strong opposition by the vacation bench consisting of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah. The State of Uttar Pradesh’s Counsel argued that because the trial court was hosting a condolence service, the prosecutrix’s evidence could not be recorded.
Justice Amanullah expressed concern over the callousness with which the prior direction of the top court to examine the victim was not complied with on time, especially in light of the inept behavior of the state counsels engaged. The petitioner, who is suspected of raping a minor, was presenting his bail request to the court.
“The state counsel has been very casual! It is a mandatory order. You ought to have filed a petition of extension! Be very careful in court, now we are going to take serious note of this! It was your dutygoing to take serious note of this! It was your duty to file a proper application for an extension.”
The Court gave the State of U.P. one week to comply with the directive, noting that the State had neglected to request an extension. It also made it clear that failure to comply would result in the State’s Home Secretary being summoned by the Court.
“If it is not done within one week, we will call your Home Secretary here. We are at fault for letting these things happen….the fault is on our part, the message has to go! “
The petitioner, who is accused of rape and criminal intimidation of a 16-year-old juvenile in violation of Sections 376, 313, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of the POCSO, appealed the Allahabad High Court’s decision to dismiss the case.
The petitioner had been assaulting the youngster for more than six months, according to the FIR dated July 19, 2023. In the contested ruling of November 30, 2023, the petitioner’s request for bail was denied in light of the seriousness of the offense and the evidence that was available at the time.
It should be recalled that the petitioner presented the trial court’s order sheet during an earlier hearing before the bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta to demonstrate that no witnesses had yet been called into question. On the other hand, the State’s attorney asserted that nine out of ten witnesses had been questioned. The prosecution was ordered to interrogate the victim by June 30 at the latest, by the court, after the case was relisted before a three-judge bench presided over by Justice BR Gavai.
The new date for the matter is Friday of next week.
Attorneys for the Petitioner: Mr. Lokesh Yadav and Mr. Rishabh Kapoor
Senior Advocate Ms. Garima Prasad (State Counsel for UP) and AoR Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain served as the respondent’s counsels.
Case Information: AVANISH VS. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH SLP(Crl) No. 004418-/2024
