Smt Dr Hemal Siddharth Mehta vs State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2025)

Smt Dr Hemal Siddharth Mehta vs State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim directions only: Respondent No. 2 directed to appear with an appointed Advocate on 02.05.2025, failing which the bail-cancellation Application will be heard on its own merits; matter stood over to 2nd May, 2025 at 2.30 p.m. No final decision on cancellation.

Issue for consideration

Whether the bail granted by the Sessions Court to Respondent No. 2 - allegedly without notice to or hearing of the prosecutrix-victim - should be cancelled. +1 more

Court's answer

Respondent No. 2 and his mother were directed to ensure that an Advocate is appointed to represent him for the hearing on 02.05.2025; it was clarified that if Respondent No. 2 does not bring his Advocate on the next adjourned date, the Application shall be heard in accordance with law on its own merits and decided accordingly.

Key takeaways

Under the procedure envisaged by the Cr.P.C., before hearing an application for bail under the provisions of IPC read with POCSO Act, the prosecutrix-victim is required to be heard by the Court, and the Court must also ensure appropriate service of notice on the prosecutrix-victim / her legal guardian for the purpose of such hearing.obiter¶¶18
Prima facie, the Sessions Court did not issue notice to the prosecutrix-victim or hear her while enlarging Respondent No. 2 on bail.obiter¶¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Milind N. Jadhav, J.), Criminal Application No. 17 of 2025 - Dr. Hemal Siddharth Mehta v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (order dated 24.04.2025). Interim order in an application seeking cancellation of bail granted by the Sessions Court to Respondent No. 2. The Court recorded that, under the procedure envisaged by the Cr.P.C., before hearing an application for bail under the provisions of IPC read with POCSO Act the prosecutrix-victim is required to be heard and appropriate notice must be effected on the prosecutrix-victim / her legal guardian, and found prima facie that the Sessions Court had not done so while enlarging Respondent No. 2 on bail. Respondent No. 2 appeared with his mother without an Advocate; both were directed to ensure that an Advocate is appointed for the hearing on 02.05.2025, with a clarification that if no Advocate is brought, the Application will be heard in accordance with law on its own merits. Counsel for the Applicant informed the Court that although Respondent No. 2 was duly represented before the trial Court, he has not been attending trial on scheduled dates after his release on bail. Matter stood over to 2nd May, 2025 at 2.30 p.m.; no final decision on cancellation was rendered.

911. APPLN-17-25.docx

Amberkar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 17 OF 2025

Dr. Hemal Siddharth Mehta .. Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents

Mr. Himanshu Vinod Kode, Advocate for Applicant

Ms. Savita M Yadav, APP for Respondent No. 1 - State

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : APRIL 24, 2025

P. C.:

1. Heard Mr. Kode, learned Advocate for Applicant and Ms. Yadav,

learned APP for Respondent No. 1 - State.

2. In the morning session, when the present Application was called out, I was informed that order dated 20.02.2025 was complied with and Respondent No. 2 was served with a copy of the Application by the concerned Investigating Officer (IO). At that time Respondent No. 2 was not present in Court. In that view of the matter, this Court dictated the order in Court requiring the IO to once again inform Respondent No. 2 to remain present in Court tomorrow i.e. 25.04.2025.

3. In the afternoon session, Respondent No. 2 and his mother both appeared before the Court and informed the Court that they were present in the Court but did not realize about the matter being called

1 of 3

911. APPLN-17-25.docx

out. Be that as it may, giving benefit of doubt to Respondent No. 2, the Application was heard.

4. It is seen that present Application seeks cancellation of bail obtained by Respondent No. 2 from the Sessions Court which prima facie is without notice having been issued to the prosecutrix - victim in the crime or she being heard by the Court. The procedure envisaged by the provisions of the Cr.P.C. is clear. It states that before hearing the Application for bail under the provisions of IPC read with POCSO Act, the prosecutrix - victim is required to be heard by the Court. The Court is also required to ensure that appropriate service of notice is effected on the prosecutrix - victim / legal guardian of the prosecutrix for the purpose of such hearing. Prima facie it is seen that the same is not found to have been done by the Sessions Court while enlarging the Respondent No. 2 on bail.

5. When Respondent No. 2 and his mother have appeared before the Court today, I have informed them to bring their Advocate. They both have informed me that they do not have an Advocate and have behaved in an unusual manner in the Court and have stated that whatever punishment the Court desires to give can be given to the Respondent No. 2. I have informed them in Court that on the next adjourned date they will have to appoint an Advocate to appear on behalf of Respondent No. 2 in the present Application which seeks

2 of 3

911. APPLN-17-25.docx

cancellation of bail. I have also informed them that the the next date for hearing the Application will be on 02.05.2025 and they are directed to ensure that an Advocate is appointed by them to represent him on that date. I am informed by Mr. Kode that before the trial Court, Respondent No.2 is / was duly represented by Advocate at all times and most importantly after his release on bail, the Respondent No. 2 is not attending the trial Court on the scheduled dates of hearing.

6. It is clarified that if Respondent No. 2 does not bring his Advocate on the next adjourned date, present Application shall be heard in accordance with law on its own merits and shall be decided accordingly. Respondent No. 2 has confirmed that he has received copy of the present Application.

7. Stand over to 2nd May, 2025 at 2.30 p.m.

Amberkar

RAVINDRA Digitally signed byRAVINDRA MOHAN MOHAN AMBERKAR AMBERKAR Date: 2025.04.2515:47:57 +0530

3 of 3