|
The Delhi High Court held that videography of bail hearings is mandatory under the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes Act, even in sexual offences. The High Court was hearing a bail application of the accused in the Delhi minor rape and murder case.
Justice Vikas Mahajan said that the provisions of Section 15A (10) of the Act are mandatory and the present bail proceedings will have to be video recorded. The high court said, "Clearly, there is no inconsistency between the provisions of recording of the bail proceedings to protect the rights of the victims under Section 15A(10) of the Act on one hand and Section 228A of the IPC and Section 23 of the POCSO Act on the other hand." Thus, it is amply clear that the legislature intended compliance of Section 15A(10) in respect of sexual offences committed under the Act as well as under IPC involving female victims whose identity, under the law, is required to be protected, the High Court said. The High Court passed the ruling while hearing the bail application of accused Laxmi Narayan. The High Court decided a question: whether it is mandatory to video record the present bail proceedings in terms of Section 15A(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, arising out of a criminal case relating to the offences under the Act. The petitioner had filed the present petition seeking regular bail under Section 439 CrPC in a case under Sections 302/304/376/342/506/201/34 IPC, Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 3 of the SC/ST Act registered at Police Station Delhi Cantt, Delhi. A similar bail application of the petitioner filed under Section 439 CrPC was rejected by the Patiala House Courts on June 8, 2023. Advocate Mehmood Pracha, counsel for complainant, submitted that in view of sub-section (10) of Section 15A of the Act, all proceedings relating to offences under the Act, including the present one, are to be video recorded. He further submitted that, as in the present case, the minor daughter of the complainant was raped and murdered by the accused persons and for the reason that the complainant belongs to the Scheduled Caste community, he is a victim within the meaning of Section 2(1)(ec) of the Act. Further, as some of the offences invoked in the present case are under the Act as well, the provisions of Section 15A(10) of the Act will apply to the present bail proceedings and it is obligatory to video record the same. Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Ritesh Kumar Bahri contended that in a supreme court decision it has been specifically held by the Supreme Court that no person can print or publish in print, electronic, social media, etc., the name of the victim under the POCSO Act or even in a remote manner disclose any fact which can lead to the victim being identified and which should make her identity known to the public at large. He also referred to Section 23 of the POCSO Act and Section 228A IPC, which in effect punish the disclosure of the identity of the victim of sexual offences, to submit that the said provisions will override the provision of Section 15A(10) of the Act. Advocate Pracha countered the submission of APP and submitted that such video recording cannot be provided to any person other than the victim. Therefore, it is his submission that the identity of the victim remains protected even if the proceedings are video recorded. He further added that there is no conflict between the provisions of Section 15A(10) of the Act on one hand and Section 23 of the POCSO Act and Section 228A IPC on the other hand. (ANI)
|
