POCSO Victims Should Not Be Repeatedly Called For Bail Hearings; Objection Could Be Recorded At First Instance Itself: Delhi High Court

The Court noted that once a child witness is summoned to record evidence, the Special Court should make every effort to conduct the examination-in-chief and cross-examination without unnecessary adjournments so that the child is not required to appear before the court multiple times, as such repeated appearances can cause serious psychological distress and re traumatisation.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma noted, “…it has been brought to the notice of this Court that the victims were called upon to appear before the Court on about eleven occasions only for the purpose of hearing arguments on the bail application. Such repeated appearance of the victims was clearly not in consonance with the spirit of the directions issued in XXXX v. State (supra)".

The Bench also highlighted that the existing guidelines permit the use of technological measures such as video-conferencing or live-link testimony for recording the evidence of vulnerable witnesses. Such mechanisms, it observed, can help ensure that testimony is recorded in a safe environment while still preserving the accused’s right to a fair trial.

“In the opinion of this Court, the objection of the victim child in such cases, to the grant of bail to the accused, could be recorded at the first instance itself. Once the views of the victim have been noted, the bail application can thereafter be contested on her behalf by her counsel or authorised representative. Requiring the victim to remain present on multiple dates of hearing of a bail application may result in unnecessary distress and may defeat the very purpose of the safeguards intended to minimise repeated exposure of the victim to the court process during such proceedings”, the Bench further noted.

Advocate Nitin Saluja appeared for the petitioner and Manoj Pant, APP appeared for the respondent.

The petition was filed by three minor victims who had challenged the issuance of bailable warrants against one of them after she failed to appear before the trial court. The High Court had earlier set aside the warrants and proceeded to examine broader issues relating to the treatment of child witnesses in POCSO trials.

According to the petitioners, the victims, who were about 15 years old at the time of the incident, had been summoned several times for recording their evidence. It was pointed out that one of the victims had been called to court nine times, another four times, and the third six times before their testimonies could be completed, causing significant emotional distress.

The Court noted that Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act specifically mandates that a child should not be called repeatedly to testify, while Section 35 requires that the child’s evidence be recorded expeditiously. The Court stressed that these provisions reflect the legislative intent to prevent prolonged exposure of child victims to the trial process.

Additionally, criticising the practice, it noted that once the views of the victim regarding the bail application are recorded, their continued presence should ordinarily not be insisted upon and they may instead be represented through counsel or an authorised person.

“The expression “vulnerable witness” in criminal proceedings includes victims of sexual offences and child victims under the POCSO Act, who require a sensitive and protective approach during investigation and trial”, the Bench noted.

While declining to frame fresh guidelines, the Court observed that detailed directions already exist under Supreme Court precedents and the Delhi High Court’s Guidelines for Recording Evidence of Vulnerable Witnesses, 2024.

Cause Title: Minor Child K & Ors. v. State NCT of Delhi & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:2046]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Nitin Saluja, Nimisha Menon, Pranya Madan and Ankita Talukdar, Advocates.

Respondent: Manoj Pant, APP, SI Sonia., Prachi Dubey, Amicus Curiae.

Click here to read/download the Judgment