In a couple of bail applications filed before the Rajasthan High Court, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sandeep Shah noted the improper manner of service of information regarding bail applications to the victim’s family despite earlier issued directions and directed authorities to ensure the necessary compliance.
The Public Prosecutor provided a copy of notice dated 08-09-2026 before the Court wherein it was recorded that the information regarding the filing of the bail application had been conveyed to the parent/guardian of the victim. It was noted that strangely, the notice bore only a signature at the bottom without the name or particular of the person to whom it belonged. The notice also did not bear the date and time as to when it was received.
The Court stated that it had, in Sandeep Singh v. State of Rajasthan [2025:RJ-JD:44482], specified the details required to be mentioned and the manner in which service is to be affected while issuing detailed guidelines. It was noted that despite such detailed guidelines, in POCSO cases, the manner of service regularly continues to be improper, which the Court said, reflected the lethargic attitude of authorities.
Further, the Court stated that the adjudication of bail applications for offences under the POCSO Act were delayed day in and day out due to non-sending of information to the parents/guardians of the victim, despite the specific guidelines which mentioned that immediately upon filing of the bail application, the SHO, on receipt of a copy from the Public Prosecutor, shall send information to the parents/guardian of the child concerned.
The Court noted that even though matters are listed, the requisite information is sent only after the Court directs the same, which ultimately leads to delay in the adjudication of bail applications. It was stated that such ineffective implementation of issued directions keeps the personal liberty of the accused persons in the dock. Furthermore, the Court said that the non-representation of the victim in many cases also reflected that the SHO did not even supply the paper book to the DSLA or RLSA to ensure legal assistance for the victim’s family as directed in Sandeep Singh (supra).
Hence, the Court directed the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, the Principal Secretary, Department of Law and Legal Affairs, and the Member Secretary, RALSA to ensure issuance of guidelines to all police stations, public prosecutors, and other stake holders throughout the State in consonance with Sandeep Singh (supra) at the earliest. The Court stated that in the present case, service had allegedly been affected in the same lethargic manner and directed the Public Prosecutor to ensure service of a fresh notice in compliance with an order dated 07-09-2026 by the Court, strictly in light of the directions issued in Sandeep Singh (supra).
The matter was directed to be listed after a week.
