<p>The High Court of Karnataka has held that non-completion of recording the evidence of the child and trial within the stipulated time as prescribed under the POCSO Act cannot be a ground to grant bail to the accused.</p>.<p>A division bench, headed by Justice B V Nagarathna, held that the object and purpose of such default clauses are only for the benefit of the child victim.</p>.<p>Though petitions filed by the accused persons seeking bail were dismissed, a single judge had referred two issues before the larger bench. The issues were, whether the evidence which has been recorded under Section 164 of CrPC be considered to be evidence under Section 35 of the POCSO Act, and whether the accused is entitled to be released on bail as a right considering the default clauses. As per the default clauses, the evidence of the child has to be recorded within 30 days of taking cognizance and trial be completed within one year from the date of taking cognizance.</p>.<p>The bench held that evidence under Section 164 of CrPC cannot be equated to the evidence under Section 35 of the POCSO Act. The court said the statement under CrPC is taken during the course of investigation, while statement under Section 35 of the POCSO Act is recorded before the special court during the course of the trial. On the issue of accused relying upon the clause of entitlement to bail on the basis of default period, the bench said such an interpretation may go against the interest of the victim child.</p>.<p>"If the aforesaid interpretation is to be made, then there would be every attempt made to delay the proceedings before the special court beyond the period of one year and seek release of the accused on bail. Such a position cannot be encouraged nor is it envisaged under the POCSO Act," the bench said.</p>.<p>The court also said that given the number of special courts constituted, it may not be possible for the trial courts to conclude the trial within one year from the date of cognizance. The bench directed the state government to take steps for setting up of the requisite number of special courts under the POCSO Act with necessary infrastructure and manpower.</p>
<p>The High Court of Karnataka has held that non-completion of recording the evidence of the child and trial within the stipulated time as prescribed under the POCSO Act cannot be a ground to grant bail to the accused.</p>.<p>A division bench, headed by Justice B V Nagarathna, held that the object and purpose of such default clauses are only for the benefit of the child victim.</p>.<p>Though petitions filed by the accused persons seeking bail were dismissed, a single judge had referred two issues before the larger bench. The issues were, whether the evidence which has been recorded under Section 164 of CrPC be considered to be evidence under Section 35 of the POCSO Act, and whether the accused is entitled to be released on bail as a right considering the default clauses. As per the default clauses, the evidence of the child has to be recorded within 30 days of taking cognizance and trial be completed within one year from the date of taking cognizance.</p>.<p>The bench held that evidence under Section 164 of CrPC cannot be equated to the evidence under Section 35 of the POCSO Act. The court said the statement under CrPC is taken during the course of investigation, while statement under Section 35 of the POCSO Act is recorded before the special court during the course of the trial. On the issue of accused relying upon the clause of entitlement to bail on the basis of default period, the bench said such an interpretation may go against the interest of the victim child.</p>.<p>"If the aforesaid interpretation is to be made, then there would be every attempt made to delay the proceedings before the special court beyond the period of one year and seek release of the accused on bail. Such a position cannot be encouraged nor is it envisaged under the POCSO Act," the bench said.</p>.<p>The court also said that given the number of special courts constituted, it may not be possible for the trial courts to conclude the trial within one year from the date of cognizance. The bench directed the state government to take steps for setting up of the requisite number of special courts under the POCSO Act with necessary infrastructure and manpower.</p>
