Follow Guidelines Relating To Service Of Notice To POCSO Victim’s Parents: Rajasthan High Court To Police, Public Prosecutors

The High Court was considering a matter which highlighted that, in spite of set guidelines in cases pertaining to offences under the POCSO Act, the manner of service continued to be improper.

The Single Bench of Justice Sandeep Shah ordered, “In view of the aforementioned state of affairs, the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, the Principal Secretary, Department of Law and Legal Affairs and the Member Secretary, RALSA are directed to take note of this fact and ensure issuance of guidelines to all the police stations, Public Prosecutors and other stakeholders through out the State of Rajasthan in consonance with the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Sandeep Singh Alias Sonu (supra) at the earliest.”

Advocate R.S. Choudhary represented the Appellant while Public Prosecutor Pawan Bhati represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Court was dealing with a POCSO case where the information regarding filing of the bail application had been conveyed to the parent/guardian of the victim but the said notice only bore a signature at the bottom without disclosing the name or particulars of the person to whom it belonged. The said notice did not bear any date and time as to when it was received.

Reasoning

The Bench referred to the judgment in Sandeep Singh Alias Sonu v. State of Rajasthan (2025) where the Court had specified the details required to be mentioned and the manner in which service is to be effected.

The Bench took note of the fact that the adjudication of bail applications for offences under the POCSO Act is being delayed day in and day out due to non-sending of information to the parents/guardians of the victim, despite the specific direction issued in Sandeep Singh (supra) that immediately upon filing of the bail application, the SHO concerned, on receipt of a copy from the Public Prosecutor, shall send the information to the parents/guardians of the child concerned.

“Day in and day out, matters are being listed before the Court, and only after issuance of directions by this Court, the requisite information is being sent to the concerned. Further, the Court has observed that due to non service of notice inspite of the specific directions, in a routine manner, time is being sought for effecting service/sending of information. The above facts, in essence, lead to delay in the adjudication of bail applications, and the personal liberty of the accused-applicants is kept in the dock due to the ineffective implementation of the directions issued in Sandeep Singh (supra)”, it stated.

The Bench further took note of the fact that non-representation of anyone on behalf of the victim in many cases reflects that even the copy of the paper book is not being supplied by the SHO concerned to the DSLA or RLSA to ensure assistance of legal counsel to the family members of the victim, as directed in para 39(iv) by this Court in Sandeep Singh (supra).

Directing the mandate in Sandeep Singh (supra) to be followed, the Bench ordered, “Learned Public Prosecutor shall ensure service of a fresh notice in compliance of the order dated 07.09.2026 passed by this Court, strictly in the light of directions issued by this Court in the case of Sandeep Singh Alias Sonu (supra).”

Cause Title: Sonu Gurjar v. State Of Rajasthan (Case No.: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12222/2026)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates R.S. Choudhary, OP Choudhary, Rakesh Matoria

Respondent: Public Prosecutor Pawan Bhati

Click here to read/download Order