Mandate to conduct time-bound POCSO trials without repeatedly summoning child victims for evidence or bail hearings.

The petitioners, three minor girls (aged 15), alleged they were repeatedly sexually abused and threatened by five accused persons over two days in August 2022.

An FIR was registered under various sections of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

During the trial, the victims were summoned repeatedly—Petitioner No. 1 nine times, Petitioner No. 2 four times, and Petitioner No. 3 six times—to record evidence, often resulting in adjournments without progress.

Furthermore, a Trial Court issued bailable warrants against Petitioner No. 1 when she failed to appear due to emotional distress.

The petitioners approached the High Court seeking to set aside the warrants and for directions to ensure strict compliance with safeguards for child victims, including the use of video-conferencing to prevent re-traumatization.

Whether the Trial Court's repeated summoning of child victims and issuance of bailable warrants against a minor victim violated the mandate of Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act.

Whether the Special Courts are required to utilize video-conferencing and other testimonial aids to record the evidence of vulnerable witnesses to prevent re-traumatization.

Whether the mandatory presence of a victim is required during every hearing of a bail application in cases involving sexual offences.

The Court primarily applied Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act, which mandates that a child shall not be called repeatedly to testify.

It relied on Section 35 (timelines for trial) and Section 36 (child-friendly procedures/video-links) of the POCSO Act.

The Court further applied the "Guidelines of the High Court of Delhi for Recording of Evidence of Vulnerable Witnesses, 2024," which define "live links" and "testimonial aids."

Judicial precedents included *Smruti Tukaram Badade v. State of Maharashtra*, which expanded the definition of vulnerable witnesses.

And *XXXX v. State*, which provided practice directions regarding victim presence during bail hearings.

The Court reasoned that the legislative intent of the POCSO Act is to protect children from the secondary trauma of the legal process.

It observed that repeated summoning of victims for over a year without concluding evidence constitutes a systemic failure to adhere to Section 33(5).

The Court emphasized that while the power to recall witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. exists, it must be balanced against the child's right to privacy and dignity.

Regarding technology, the Court noted that the 2024 Guidelines already provide a robust framework for "Live Links" and "Vulnerable Witness Deposition Centres (VWDCs)," rendering further specific guidelines unnecessary but necessitating stricter implementation.

On bail hearings, the Court held that once a victim’s objections are recorded, their continuous presence is an unnecessary burden that leads to re-living the trauma in the presence of the accused.

The Court ordered that: (i) bailable warrants against the minor victim be set aside (previously done via interim order).

(ii) Trial Courts must fix specific dates to conclude testimony in a single block to avoid repeated summoning.

(iii) video-conferencing must be liberally permitted upon request as per the 2024 Guidelines.

And (iv) victim presence in bail hearings should not be insisted upon once initial objections are recorded.

The judgment was directed to be circulated to all Judicial Officers in Delhi for guidance.