Failure To Inform Crime Under Section 21 Of POCSO Act Is A Bailable Offence As Per CrPC Since POCSO Act Is Silent: Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the failure to inform and report crime under Section 21 of POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) Act, 2012 is a bailable offence as per Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The accused had filed a petition for seeking pre-arrest bail with regard to the FIR for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 6 and 21 of POCSO Act, and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act (IT Act).
A Single Bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla said, “Since the POCSO Act does not provide the nature of the offence; hence, it has to be determined with reference to the Code of Criminal Procedure. The classification of the offences under the Code of Criminal Procedure clearly shows that if the offences are punishable with imprisonment for less than three years, the offences are bailable and non-cognizable. Section 21 of the POCSO Act provides a punishable of six months/1 year; therefore, the same will be a bailable offence as per the Code of Criminal Procedure.”
Advocate Devender K Sharma appeared for the petitioner/accused while Deputy Advocate General R.P. Singh appeared for the respondent/State.
In this case, the petitioner was not made accused initially in the F.I.R. but, subsequently, he was made an accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the POCSO Act. The name of the petitioner appeared during the investigation. As per the prosecution, the main accused had committed the crime in the hotel managed by the petitioner. The petitioner cooperated with the Investigating Agency and provided all the information and documents. The petitioner was implicated in the FIR on the ground that he had failed to report the commission of the offence. The petitioner was not aware of the commission of the offence. The petitioner was ready and willing to join the investigation and abide by all the terms and conditions imposed by the Court upon him. Therefore, it was prayed that the petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
The High Court in the above context of the case observed, “No other precedent to the contrary was brought to the notice of the Court. Therefore, the plea that the offence punishable under Section 21 is bailable is upheld.”
The Court, therefore, noted that a person accused of a bailable offence is entitled to bail as a matter of right and hence, the petition is not maintainable.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title- Sushil Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2023:HHC:13130)
