Read Time: 04 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court has recently raised concerns over what it perceives as a systemic bias in trial courts' handling of bail applications under the POCSO Act.

Scrutiny of 40 bail orders by the bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot revealed a troubling trend where bail was consistently denied, despite medical reports indicating victims were aged 18 or older and affirmations from victims themselves about consensual relations. 

He highlighted a pervasive mindset among trial judges that rejecting bail applications is a surefire way to demonstrate integrity and proper judicial conduct.

"The culture or if one may say the mindset of the learned trial judges (collectively speaking) that dismissal of bails in POCSO Act offences irrespective of the facts and circumstances of the case is the only way to show one’s integrity and a fail safe way of discharging judicial functions has to change," he said.

Justice Ajay Bhanot emphasized the need for comprehensive reform involving all relevant stakeholders, including judges and the Judicial Training & Research Institute (JTRI) in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.

He opined that this can be achieved by regular training at the JTRI which is consistently reinforced at the district judgeships in the “Continuous Learning Programmes” being run in the district judgeships.

Justice Bhanot stressed the urgent need for the Judicial Training & Research Institute (JTRI) in Lucknow and district judges to study systemic faults in handling POCSO cases. He called for creating training programs to ensure POCSO judges administer justice fairly in bail matters.

Apart from that, he asserted that the observations made in the present order shall not operate adversely against the judicial officers who had handed down the concerned orders. The issue has to be seen less as an individual infirmity but more as an institutional inadequacy, he said. 

The judge directed the order to be sent to the Government Advocate for communication to the Director General of Police, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, Director General (Prosecution), Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, and other police authorities for necessary action.

Case Title: Anurudh v. State of UP and 3 Others