In order to determine whether the necessity of giving notice to a victim or complainant of sexual offences under the IPC and POCSO Act also demands inclusion of such person as a party to a bail plea or appeal, The Delhi High Court recently appointed Senior Advocate Rebecca John as amicus curiae. 

In light of the fact that maintaining the privacy and confidentiality of a victim in sexual offences is required by law and that the victim "is not ordinarily required" to be impleaded in such cases, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani requested John's help in order to take a "considered view" in the matter.

The Supreme Court's recent decision in Jagjeet Singh & Ors. v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu & Anr., which held that a victim has the right to participate in every stage of the trial from the investigation to the trial's conclusion in an appeal or revision, will be taken into consideration by the court, according to the court. 

It will also consider whether any other legal ruling or statutory requirement calls for such an impleadment.

“Since maintaining confidentiality and privacy of a victim/prosecutrix in sexual offences is a mandate of the law inter-alia under section 228A IPC and section 23 POCSO Act; and a victim/complainant is not ordinarily required to be impleaded in such cases, in order to take a considered view on this aspect, this court appoints Ms. Rebecca Mammen John, learned senior counsel as Amicus Curiae to assist the court,” the court said.

The court was addressing a bail motion made by an accused who was detained in connection with an FIR that was filed in accordance with Sections 376 of the IPC and 4 of the POCSO Act. 

On January 16, the Registrar pointed to section 439(1A) of the Criminal Procedure Code and court practise instructions from September 24, 2019 that required the victim or complainant to be named as the respondent in the note of parties after concealing their identity. 

It was also mentioned that a coordination bench order from February 21, 2022 in the matter of Rakesh Bhatnagar v. State (Govt) of the NCT of Delhi allowed the complainant to be impleaded as the respondent in a related case.

The victim was impleaded as a respondent in the case, according to the defence attorney for the accused, because the Registry had requested it. 

However, State argued that the Registry was just pressing on the necessity due to section 439(1A) of the Criminal Procedure Code and 2019 practise instructions. 

In Reena Jha & Anr v. Union of India & Ors, a coordinate bench's ruling that section 439(1A) of the Criminal Procedure Code should apply to proceedings under the POCSO Act and the specifically listed sexual offences under the IPC, was relied upon.

Title: SALEEM v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.
Citation: BAIL APPLN. 3635/2022