Jharkhand HC orders inspection of all POCSO cases after judge delayed victim’s testimony and bail plea decision

The petitioner invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking expeditious disposal of Criminal Misc. Case No. 20 of 2025, pending before the Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, Jamshedpur, in connection with POCSO Case No. 89 of 2024 arising from Sidhgora P.S. Case No. 15 of 2024.

The application concerned cancellation of bail granted to Opposite Party No. 2, the accused.

The petitioner alleged that the accused was threatening and pressuring the informant and her family to compromise the case and that the victim had not been examined despite several dates having been fixed.

Notice was served on Opposite Party No. 2, but no one appeared on repeated calls.

The State did not oppose the petitioner’s prayer.

The High Court noted that the cancellation-of-bail application had remained pending despite the absence of the opposite party on 20 January, 11 February, 21 February and 12 March 2026.

Whether the High Court should direct the Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, to expeditiously dispose of the petitioner’s pending application for cancellation of bail under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Whether the Special Judge should be directed to record the evidence of the victim girl at the earliest in view of the statutory and procedural mandate governing POCSO cases.

Whether supervisory directions should be issued to ensure that other POCSO matters before the concerned Special Judge are not unnecessarily delayed.

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to secure the ends of justice and prevent unnecessary delay in criminal proceedings.

It applied the principle that, in POCSO cases, the victim’s statement and evidence should be recorded at the earliest opportunity.

The Court also relied on the broader judicial duty of trial courts to decide pending applications and conduct POCSO proceedings expeditiously, particularly where delay may prejudice the victim and the administration of justice.

No specific judicial precedent was cited in the order.

The High Court found that the Special Judge had failed to act expeditiously on the petitioner’s cancellation-of-bail application despite repeated non-appearance of Opposite Party No. 2 and had continued adjourning the matter instead of passing an appropriate order.

The Court considered this delay especially serious because the proceedings arose from a POCSO case and the victim’s evidence had not yet been recorded, contrary to the requirement that such evidence be taken at the earliest opportunity.

In light of the State’s absence of objection, the repeated adjournments, and the need to protect the integrity and prompt progress of POCSO proceedings, the Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS and issued time-bound directions.

The Principal District Judge, East Singhbhum, was directed to inspect the POCSO records pending before the concerned Special Judge within one week and, where unjustified delay was found, ensure that victims’ statements were recorded within 15 days and pending applications were decided within 30 days.

Continued non-compliance was to be reported to the Registrar General of the High Court within two months.

The interlocutory application for early hearing was dismissed as infructuous because the main petition was heard on the same day.