Top Human Rights Council Of India : news

SECTION 29 OF THE POCSO ACT, 2012 Presumption of Guilt, Burden of Proof, False Allegations and Constitutional Safeguards for the Accused

Administrator — Fri, 16 Oct 2026 16:53:57 +0530

LEGAL INSIGHT BY DR. ANTHONY RAJU

SECTION 29 OF THE POCSO ACT, 2012

Presumption of Guilt, Burden of Proof, False Allegations and Constitutional Safeguards for the Accused

“An allegation is not a conviction. The strength of justice lies not in the severity of an accusation, but in the credibility of evidence and fairness of the trial.”

By Dr. Anthony Raju
Advocate, Supreme Court of India
Criminal Defence Advocate | POCSO Litigation | Constitutional Rights & Criminal Justice
Chairman, All India Council of Human Rights, Liberties & Social Justice (AICHLS)

INTRODUCTION: CAN AN ACCUSED BE PRESUMED GUILTY BEFORE THE OFFENCE IS PROVED?

The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, is a special legislation enacted to protect children from sexual abuse, sexual assault and exploitation.

However, Section 29 introduces one of the most significant departures from the ordinary principles of criminal jurisprudence by creating a rebuttable statutory presumption against the accused.

Does this mean that merely filing an FIR makes a person guilty? Can an accused still obtain bail? What happens when allegations are false, exaggerated or motivated by personal disputes?

Dr. Anthony Raju, Advocate, Supreme Court of India, emphasises that Section 29 must never be interpreted as a licence for automatic conviction.

The law must protect children while simultaneously ensuring that no person is deprived of liberty or convicted without a fair and legally sound judicial process.

1. WHAT EXACTLY DOES SECTION 29 PROVIDE?

Section 29 of the POCSO Act states:

“Where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence under sections 3, 5, 7 and section 9 of this Act, the Special Court shall presume, that such person has committed or abetted or attempted to commit the offence, as the case may be unless the contrary is proved.”

The provision relates to specified offences involving penetrative sexual assault, aggravated penetrative sexual assault, sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault.

The crucial legal distinction is that the presumption is rebuttable.

The accused retains the right to challenge the prosecution's case, contest the foundational facts and present legally admissible evidence in defence.

Section 29 does not authorise conviction merely because allegations have been made.

2. FOUNDATIONAL FACTS: THE FIRST LEGAL SAFEGUARD

One of the most important questions in Section 29 litigation concerns the prosecution's obligation to establish foundational facts.

The prosecution cannot treat the registration of an FIR or the framing of charges as conclusive proof that the alleged offence occurred.

The court must examine the legally relevant facts, the evidence presented and the applicable judicial precedents when deciding whether and how the statutory presumption operates.

The defence may challenge:

Whether the age of the alleged victim has been legally established.
Whether the evidence reliably connects the accused with the alleged occurrence.
Whether material contradictions affect the prosecution's case.
Whether medical, forensic and electronic evidence support or undermine the allegations.
Whether the essential ingredients of the charged offence have been established.
Dr. Anthony Raju's Legal Insight:

“A statutory presumption cannot replace judicial reasoning. The court must examine the legal foundation of the prosecution's case before determining the consequences of the presumption.”

The precise evidentiary threshold and stage at which Section 29 operates must be determined according to the applicable binding precedents.

3. DOES SECTION 29 AUTOMATICALLY PREVENT BAIL?

No. Section 29 does not impose an absolute statutory prohibition on bail.

The accused may seek regular bail, anticipatory bail where legally maintainable, or other appropriate remedies before the competent court.

Depending on the procedural stage and applicable legal standards, relevant considerations may include:

Nature and gravity of the allegations.
Prima facie evidence and the material available on record.
Custodial interrogation requirements.
Risk of absconding or influencing witnesses.
Criminal antecedents, if any.
Length of detention and progress of proceedings.
Applicable statutory presumptions and judicial precedents.
Bail is not automatic, and each case requires independent judicial consideration.

The seriousness of an allegation is relevant, but it does not eliminate the court's obligation to apply the law fairly.

4. DEFENCE STRATEGIES IN POCSO CASES

Effective criminal defence requires detailed scrutiny of the prosecution's allegations, investigation, documentary record and admissible evidence.

A. Cross-Examination of Prosecution Witnesses

Cross-examination may be used to test material inconsistencies, omissions, reliability and credibility.

In POCSO proceedings, questioning of a child witness must strictly comply with the child-friendly safeguards prescribed by law. The defence must challenge the evidence without intimidation, harassment or humiliation.

B. Medical and Forensic Evidence

The defence may examine:

Medical examination records.
Forensic laboratory reports.
DNA findings, where relevant.
Collection, preservation and sealing of samples.
Chain of custody and possible contamination.
Consistency between forensic findings and the allegations.
The absence of physical injuries or DNA evidence does not, by itself, disprove sexual assault. Its significance depends upon the circumstances and the totality of evidence.

C. Electronic and Digital Evidence

Relevant evidence may include CCTV recordings, call-detail records, electronic communications, location records and other lawfully obtained material.

The defence must also examine authenticity, integrity, admissibility and compliance with the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, where applicable.

D. Investigation and Procedural Irregularities

Material investigative lapses, unexplained inconsistencies and failures in evidence preservation may be relevant to the defence.

However, every procedural irregularity does not automatically invalidate a prosecution or entitle an accused to acquittal.

Dr. Anthony Raju's Defence Principle:

“The duty of a criminal defence advocate is not merely to question the accusation, but to examine whether the prosecution's evidence can withstand the scrutiny required by law.”

5. FALSE OR MALICIOUS POCSO COMPLAINTS: WHAT DOES THE LAW PROVIDE?

Section 22 of the POCSO Act contains provisions concerning false complaints and false information made with the specified malicious intent.

However, an acquittal, contradiction or failure to secure conviction does not automatically establish that the complaint was deliberately false.

The statutory requirements must be independently satisfied.

Importantly, Section 22 protects a child from punishment for making a false complaint or providing false information under the relevant provision. The law also contains specific protections and distinctions concerning false complaints made against children.

Where legally sustainable evidence of deliberate fabrication exists, appropriate remedies may be examined.

The objective must be accountability under law, not retaliation against complainants or witnesses.

6. FIR QUASHING: REMEDIES BEFORE THE HIGH COURT

Where criminal proceedings constitute an abuse of the process of law or otherwise satisfy the applicable judicial standards, the accused may seek quashing before the High Court.

The relevant provisions include:

Section 528, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — preserving the inherent powers of the High Court.

Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) — relevant where the former Code continues to govern under applicable savings and transitional provisions.

The High Court's inherent jurisdiction is exceptional and is not ordinarily exercised to conduct a detailed trial of disputed evidence.

Quashing is not guaranteed merely because the accused alleges that the FIR is false.

7. DR. ANTHONY RAJU: DEFENDING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IN POCSO CASES

Dr. Anthony Raju, Advocate, Supreme Court of India, advocates a strong, evidence-based and constitutionally grounded approach to criminal defence, particularly in sensitive POCSO proceedings.

His legal approach emphasises the importance of protecting the fundamental rights of the accused without compromising the dignity, safety and statutory protections of children.

The guiding principles of his criminal defence advocacy include:

Defence Against Unsupported Allegations: Challenging accusations through credible evidence, legal reasoning and judicial scrutiny rather than assumptions or speculation.

Protection of Constitutional Rights: Safeguarding personal liberty, procedural fairness and the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Rigorous Examination of Evidence: Scrutinising prosecution testimony, medical and forensic findings, digital evidence and the legal requirements of the alleged offences.

Opposition to Mechanical Application of Statutory Presumptions: Ensuring that Section 29 is interpreted and applied consistently with statutory requirements and binding judicial precedents.

Commitment to the Rule of Law: Supporting the protection of genuine victims while defending individuals against legally unsubstantiated criminal accusations.

A Powerful Message from Dr. Anthony Raju

“A person accused of a serious crime does not lose the right to justice. The more serious the allegation, the greater the responsibility of the justice system to ensure that every legal safeguard is respected.”

“A defence advocate does not defend crime. A defence advocate defends constitutional rights, challenges unreliable evidence and ensures that no conviction is secured without the legal requirements being satisfied.”

“Justice must protect the innocent, safeguard victims and hold the guilty accountable. It must never become an instrument of personal revenge, prejudice or misuse of legal process.”

For Dr. Anthony Raju, criminal defence is not about securing acquittal at any cost. It is about ensuring that every person receives a fair trial, every allegation is properly tested and every judicial outcome rests upon law and evidence.

8. CONCLUSION: SECTION 29 IS A PRESUMPTION, NOT AN AUTOMATIC CONVICTION

The POCSO Act serves the essential public purpose of protecting children against sexual offences.

At the same time, the statutory presumption under Section 29 must be applied with due regard to the prosecution's evidentiary obligations, the accused's right to rebut the presumption and the constitutional requirement of a fair trial.

The presumption cannot become a substitute for proper judicial evaluation.

Dr. Anthony Raju reiterates three fundamental principles:

An accusation must be examined, not automatically accepted as proof.

A statutory presumption must operate within the limits established by law.

A fair trial is not a privilege granted to the accused; it is a fundamental requirement of justice.

FINAL LEGAL MESSAGE

**“LET EVIDENCE SPEAK. LET THE LAW PREVAIL. LET JUSTICE REMAIN

LEGAL DISCLAIMER
This content is for general legal awareness only and does not constitute legal advice. Every POCSO case depends on its specific facts, evidence and applicable law. No guarantee of bail, quashing or acquittal is made or implied. Consult a qualified advocate for case-specific advice. Judicial outcomes are determined solely by the competent courts.

Dr. Anthony Raju is a prominent Advocate at the Supreme Court of India, criminal defense lawyer, and human rights activist. He is the Global Chairman and Founder of the All India Council of Human Rights, Liberties & Social Justice (AICHLS). [1, 2, 3]

Key Areas of Expertise & Legal Practice
Dr. Raju handles complex litigation across the Supreme Court and major High Courts: [1]
Criminal Defense & Bail: Specializes in sensitive cases like POCSO, Section 304B IPC, matrimonial disputes, and securing bails or FIR quashing.
Central Agencies Defense: Defends clients in investigations by the CBI, ED under PMLA, and NIA handling UAPA cases.
Constitutional & Civil Rights: Files writ petitions addressing state excesses and prisoners' welfare.
Law Firm Leadership: Managing Partner of Legal & Legal Associates. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

Human Rights Advocacy & Public Profile
Dr. Raju holds academic credentials and honorary doctorates in sociology and human rights from International Peace University, Germany. He serves as a UN Peace Ambassador and TEDx speaker, focusing on combating violence against women and child trafficking. [1, 2, 3]

Contact & Location
Address: C/o Suresh Electronics, C-1088, Ward No. 1, Mehrauli, New Delhi – 110030
Official Communications: Accessible via the AICHLS platform or WhatsApp at +91 085888 72001. [1]

Supreme Court on POCSO Allegations Arising in Matrimonial Disputes: Key Safeguards

Administrator — Thu, 01 Oct 2026 15:54:35 +0530

Supreme Court on POCSO Allegations Arising in Matrimonial Disputes: Key Safeguards
R v. E & Anr., 2026 INSC 1049
Legal Analysis & Insight by Dr. Anthony Raju, Advocate, Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court, in R v. E & Anr., 2026 INSC 1049, has laid down important procedural safeguards concerning POCSO allegations arising in a particular category of matrimonial disputes.

The judgment is significant because it seeks to maintain a careful balance between the paramount objective of child protection under the POCSO Act and the requirement of a fair, objective and legally compliant investigation.

The safeguards, however, should not be understood as applying to every POCSO case. They operate in the specific circumstances identified by the Supreme Court.

The Threshold Conditions
The safeguards become relevant where:

1. The allegation under the POCSO Act is against a parent of the child or a family member residing in the same household as the child; and

2. There is a matrimonial dispute or strained relationship between the parents of the child.

Where these circumstances exist, the investigation requires heightened procedural care.

1. Registration of FIR Does Not Mean Automatic Arrest
One of the most important aspects of the ruling is that registration of a POCSO FIR does not, by itself, make arrest automatic.

The Investigating Officer must independently consider the statutory requirements governing arrest, including the framework under Section 35 of the BNSS.

The relevant question is therefore not merely whether an FIR has been registered, but whether the statutory conditions and necessity for arrest are actually satisfied and properly recorded.

This distinction is particularly important because an FIR sets the criminal law process in motion; it does not itself constitute proof of guilt.

2. Assistance of Child and Adolescent Mental-Health Experts
In the circumstances covered by the judgment, the Investigating Officer/SJPU is required to obtain appropriate assistance from an expert in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry or Clinical Psychology, through the prescribed institutional mechanism.

The purpose is to assist the investigation in understanding the relevant circumstances surrounding the child's statements and allegations.

However, the Supreme Court has made an important distinction: an expert's report is investigative assistance, not a determination of guilt or innocence.

It does not automatically bind the Investigating Officer and cannot, by itself, be treated as the sole basis for filing a chargesheet or a closure report.

3. Exceptional Circumstances
The requirement of expert involvement is not absolute in every conceivable situation.

Where the available material is sufficiently clear or “palpable” and the circumstances justify dispensing with expert evaluation, such evaluation may be omitted.

However, the Investigating Officer must record the reasons for taking such a course in writing.

4. Protection of the Child During Evaluation
The judgment also emphasises that investigation must not become a source of unnecessary pressure upon the child.

The evaluation should be conducted in accordance with law and professionally, while avoiding unnecessary or repeated questioning. Where applicable, appropriate support mechanisms may also be utilised.

Thus, child protection and fair investigation are complementary requirements, not competing objectives.

5. Private Complaints Before the Special Court
The Court has also addressed the situation where proceedings are initiated through a private complaint under Section 33 of the POCSO Act, rather than through a police FIR.

A complaint cannot simply result in mechanical issuance of summons. The Special Court is required to apply its judicial mind and consider whether sufficient prima facie grounds exist before proceeding further.

Accordingly:

Private Complaint ≠ Automatic Summons

6. POCSO FIR and Child Custody Proceedings
Another significant aspect concerns custody and guardianship disputes.

The mere registration of a POCSO FIR does not automatically determine or extinguish a parent's custody or guardianship claim. The competent court must independently examine the available material and the circumstances of the case.

This is particularly relevant where criminal proceedings and family litigation are proceeding simultaneously.

7. Importance of Objective Evidence
The judgment demonstrates the importance of examining objective evidence rather than relying exclusively upon allegations.

In the case under consideration, investigation included examination of CCTV footage, statements, litigation chronology, psychological/psychiatric material and other surrounding circumstances.

Depending upon the facts of an individual case, relevant objective material may include:

· CCTV footage;

· mobile and electronic records;

· location data;

· school records;

· travel records;

· medical evidence;

· forensic evidence;

· DNA evidence, where relevant; and

· independent witnesses.

The proper approach is therefore to examine the complete evidentiary chronology, rather than treating an allegation in isolation.

Dr. Anthony Raju's Legal Insight
In my view, the real significance of this judgment lies in its emphasis on procedural discipline without diluting the protective purpose of POCSO.

A POCSO allegation must be investigated with utmost seriousness. At the same time, the investigation must remain objective, evidence-based and consistent with statutory safeguards.

The judgment does not hold that matrimonial disputes make POCSO allegations unreliable, nor does it create a general exemption from arrest in POCSO cases.

Rather, where the specific circumstances identified by the Supreme Court exist, the authorities must exercise greater procedural caution and comply with the safeguards prescribed by law.

An FIR is the beginning of an investigation—not a judicial finding of guilt.

For the defence, the practical focus should therefore be on the complete chronology, objective evidence, statutory compliance, arrest requirements and the manner in which the investigation was conducted.

For investigating agencies and courts, the judgment reinforces the importance of ensuring that the child receives protection while the criminal process remains fair, independent and legally sustainable.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court's approach may be understood through four fundamental principles:

CHILD PROTECTION
FAIR INVESTIGATION
STATUTORY COMPLIANCE
JUDICIAL APPLICATION OF MIND

The objective is not to weaken POCSO, but to ensure that its powerful protective framework operates through a process that is both effective and legally fair.

Dr. Anthony Raju
Advocate, Supreme Court of India

My team at the National Legal Aid Council is conducting extensive legal research on this subject, with the objective of examining POCSO law, child protection and procedural safeguards from a balanced legal perspective.

Legal Disclaimer
This article is intended solely for legal education and awareness. It does not constitute legal advice in any particular case. Every POCSO matter must be independently assessed on the basis of its FIR, statements, evidence, medical and forensic material, electronic evidence, procedural history and the complete investigation record.

POCSO Supreme Court Judgment 2026 · POCSO
FIR Automatic Arrest · Section 35 BNSS · POCSO Matrimonial Dispute · POCSO
Defence Safeguards

#POCSO #SupremeCourt #DrAnthonyRaju #POCSOAct #LegalAwareness

पुलिस ने पहली गिरफ्तारी में गिरफ्तारी के लिखित आधार नहीं बताए… तो क्या आरोपी को पुलिस अपनी मर्जी से दोबारा गिरफ्तार कर सकती है?” Supreme Court

Administrator — Sun, 27 Sep 2026 12:46:00 +0530

“पुलिस ने पहली गिरफ्तारी में गिरफ्तारी के लिखित आधार नहीं बताए… तो क्या आरोपी को पुलिस अपनी मर्जी से दोबारा गिरफ्तार कर सकती है?”

सुप्रीम कोर्ट का ताज़ा जवाब — नहीं, सीधे नहीं!

Dr. Anthony Raju, Advocate, Supreme Court of India

“सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने 21 सितंबर 2026 को Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab, 2026 INSC 1022, में Article 22 के तहत गिरफ्तारी की संवैधानिक सुरक्षा को लेकर महत्वपूर्ण दिशा-निर्देश दिए हैं।

अगर गिरफ्तारी के समय आरोपी को लिखित रूप में गिरफ्तारी के आधार नहीं बताए गए और Article 22(1) का उल्लंघन हुआ, तो ऐसी गिरफ्तारी और उसके बाद की हिरासत असंवैधानिक हो सकती है।

और सबसे महत्वपूर्ण बात—

अगर आरोपी को ऐसी संवैधानिक गलती के कारण रिहा किया गया है, तो पुलिस उसी व्यक्ति को अपनी मर्जी से तुरंत दोबारा गिरफ्तार नहीं कर सकती।

जांच एजेंसी को पहले—

✅ गिरफ्तारी के लिखित आधार देने होंगे,

✅ दोबारा हिरासत की आवश्यकता बतानी होगी,

✅ पहली बार आधार क्यों नहीं दिए गए—इसका स्पष्टीकरण देना होगा,

✅ तत्काल वरिष्ठ अधिकारी की endorsement लेनी होगी,

और फिर संबंधित Judicial Magistrate के सामने आवेदन करना होगा।

दोबारा गिरफ्तारी के लिए judicial approval आवश्यक है।

लेकिन ध्यान रखिए—

इसका मतलब यह नहीं है कि आरोपी को हमेशा के लिए दोबारा गिरफ्तारी से immunity मिल गई। सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने कहा है कि कानून के अनुसार आवश्यक प्रक्रिया पूरी होने पर आगे की कार्रवाई संभव हो सकती है।

यानी—Police Power भी Constitution के अधीन है, और Personal Liberty भी Constitution से protected है।”

क्या आपके मामले में गिरफ्तारी के grounds लिखित रूप में दिए गए थे?

Comment में लिखिए: YES या NO.

Case:

Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol v. State of Punjab

2026 INSC 1022 | 21.09.2026

Supreme Court New Arrest Rule 2026 | Article 22(1) | Re-Arrest Requires Magistrate Permission | Dr. Anthony Raju

#DrAnthonyRaju #SupremeCourt #Article22 #ArrestRights #ReArrest #CriminalLaw #BNSS2023 #PoliceArrest #LegalAwareness #IndianLaw #Bail #HumanRights #POCSO #Advocate #LegalUpdate

Legal Disclaimer: यह वीडियो केवल सामान्य कानूनी जागरूकता के लिए है। किसी विशेष मामले में कार्रवाई से पहले संबंधित दस्तावेजों और तथ्यों के आधार पर योग्य अधिवक्ता से कानूनी सलाह लें।

मानवाधिकार परिषद ने कालकाजी मंदिर के निकट कथित यौन उत्पीड़न की घटना पर चिंता जताई; महिलाओं की सुरक्षा को सर्वोच्च प्राथमिकता देने की मांग

Administrator — Wed, 23 Sep 2026 16:22:54 +0530

मानवाधिकार परिषद ने कालकाजी मंदिर के निकट कथित यौन उत्पीड़न की घटना पर चिंता जताई; महिलाओं की सुरक्षा को सर्वोच्च प्राथमिकता देने की मांग
नई दिल्ली | 23 सितंबर 2026

ऑल इंडिया काउंसिल ऑफ ह्यूमन राइट्स, लिबर्टीज एंड सोशल जस्टिस (AICHLS) ने नई दिल्ली के कालकाजी मंदिर के निकट आस्था कुंज पार्क में 17 वर्षीय लड़की के कथित यौन उत्पीड़न से संबंधित मीडिया रिपोर्टों पर गहरी चिंता व्यक्त की है।

मीडिया रिपोर्टों के अनुसार, तीन व्यक्तियों ने कथित रूप से स्वयं को पुलिसकर्मी बताकर एक नाबालिग लड़की और उसके पुरुष साथी को धमकाया तथा उसके बाद कथित रूप से लड़की के साथ यौन उत्पीड़न किया। रिपोर्टों के अनुसार, मामले में कथित आरोपियों को गिरफ्तार किया गया है और प्रकरण में भारतीय न्याय संहिता (BNS) तथा पॉक्सो अधिनियम (POCSO Act) की संबंधित धाराओं के तहत जांच की जा रही है।

डॉ. एंथनी राजू, अधिवक्ता, सर्वोच्च न्यायालय एवं अध्यक्ष, ऑल इंडिया काउंसिल ऑफ ह्यूमन राइट्स, लिबर्टीज एंड सोशल जस्टिस (AICHLS) ने कहा:

“महिलाओं और बच्चों की सुरक्षा, गरिमा और सम्मान राज्य तथा समाज की सर्वोच्च प्राथमिकता होनी चाहिए। किसी बच्चे के विरुद्ध यौन हिंसा का कोई भी आरोप अत्यंत गंभीर विषय है और इसकी त्वरित, निष्पक्ष तथा कानून के अनुरूप पेशेवर जांच आवश्यक है।”
AICHLS संबंधित अधिकारियों से निम्नलिखित सुनिश्चित करने की अपील करता है:

त्वरित, निष्पक्ष और कानूनसम्मत जांच सुनिश्चित की जाए;
घटनास्थल तथा आसपास के क्षेत्र के CCTV फुटेज, डिजिटल, इलेक्ट्रॉनिक और फॉरेंसिक साक्ष्यों को तत्काल सुरक्षित कर उनकी जांच की जाए;
नाबालिग की पहचान, निजता और गरिमा की पूर्ण सुरक्षा की जाए;
प्रभावित बच्ची और उसके परिवार को आवश्यक सुरक्षा, परामर्श एवं सहायता उपलब्ध कराई जाए;
संवेदनशील सार्वजनिक स्थानों पर पुलिस गश्त, पर्याप्त प्रकाश व्यवस्था, CCTV निगरानी और सुरक्षा व्यवस्था को मजबूत किया जाए; तथा
कानून और न्यायिक प्रक्रिया के अनुरूप जवाबदेही सुनिश्चित की जाए।
महिलाओं की सुरक्षा का राजनीतिकरण नहीं होना चाहिए
डॉ. एंथनी राजू ने आगे कहा:

“महिलाओं और बच्चों की सुरक्षा राजनीतिक आरोप-प्रत्यारोप या राजनीतिक टकराव का विषय नहीं बननी चाहिए। तत्काल प्राथमिकता पीड़िता की सुरक्षा और गरिमा, निष्पक्ष जांच, कानून के अनुसार जवाबदेही तथा प्रभावी निवारक उपाय होने चाहिए, ताकि ऐसी घटनाओं की पुनरावृत्ति रोकी जा सके।”
AICHLS मीडिया, राजनीतिक प्रतिनिधियों और आम जनता से भी अपील करता है कि वे जिम्मेदारी और संयम बरतें, विशेषकर नाबालिग की पहचान, निजता और चल रही जांच से संबंधित किसी भी जानकारी को सार्वजनिक करने के संबंध में।

संगठन यह स्पष्ट करता है कि किसी भी आरोप की निष्पक्ष जांच आवश्यक है तथा किसी भी आरोपी की दोषसिद्धि अथवा निर्दोषता का अंतिम निर्धारण सक्षम न्यायालय द्वारा विधि सम्मत रूप से प्रस्तुत और स्वीकार्य साक्ष्यों तथा उचित कानूनी प्रक्रिया के आधार पर ही किया जाना चाहिए।

डॉ. एंथनी राजू
अधिवक्ता, सर्वोच्च न्यायालय, भारत
अध्यक्ष
ऑल इंडिया काउंसिल ऑफ ह्यूमन राइट्स, लिबर्टीज एंड सोशल जस्टिस (AICHLS)

मीडिया अस्वीकरण
यह प्रेस वक्तव्य संबंधित घटना के बारे में सार्वजनिक रूप से उपलब्ध मीडिया रिपोर्टों के आधार पर जारी किया गया है। रिपोर्ट में उल्लिखित आरोपों को स्थापित तथ्य अथवा दोषसिद्धि का निष्कर्ष नहीं माना जाना चाहिए। प्रत्येक आरोपी को तब तक निर्दोष माना जाता है जब तक कि सक्षम न्यायालय द्वारा कानून के अनुसार दोष सिद्ध न कर दिया जाए। यह वक्तव्य केवल महिलाओं और बच्चों की सुरक्षा के संबंध में चिंता व्यक्त करने के उद्देश्य से जारी किया गया है और इसका उद्देश्य किसी जांच अथवा न्यायिक कार्यवाही को प्रभावित करना नहीं है।

#DrAnthonyRaju #AICHLS #WomenSafety #ChildProtection #HumanRights

@NCWIndia

DR. ANTHONY RAJU

ADVOCATE, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Dr. Anthony Raju represents a distinctive blend of courtroom advocacy, criminal-law scholarship, legal education, authorship and human-rights advocacy.

As an Advocate of the Supreme Court of India, he is associated with complex and sensitive criminal litigation, particularly matters involving POCSO, sexual offences, serious crimes, personal liberty, constitutional safeguards and human rights.

His professional engagement extends across POCSO cases, rape and sexual-offence matters, bail and anticipatory bail, criminal appeals, suspension of sentence, dowry death and 498A matters, murder and other serious criminal cases, CBI, ED, NIA and PMLA matters, FIR quashing, criminal writs, constitutional remedies, jail reforms and prisoners' rights.

THE CRIMINAL LAW APPROACH

Serious criminal litigation demands far more than an argument in court.

It demands the ability to examine every component of the prosecution case.

FACTS

What is alleged, what is established and what remains to be proved.

EVIDENCE

Oral, documentary, medical, forensic, electronic and scientific evidence must be examined with precision.

WITNESSES

Credibility, consistency, reliability, contradictions, omissions and material improvements require careful scrutiny.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

A carefully structured cross-examination can test the credibility of witnesses, expose inconsistencies and place material facts before the Court.

MEDICAL AND FORENSIC EVIDENCE

Medical records, DNA evidence, FSL reports and other scientific evidence may become critical components of a serious criminal trial.

INVESTIGATION

The legality, fairness, completeness and reliability of the investigation require close examination.

PROCEDURE

Every relevant statutory and constitutional safeguard must be carefully considered.

LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE

Facts and evidence must ultimately be tested against statutory provisions, constitutional principles and binding judicial precedents.

COURTROOM STRATEGY

FACTS + EVIDENCE + WITNESSES + CROSS-EXAMINATION + PROCEDURE + LAW + JURISPRUDENCE

This integrated approach forms the foundation of serious criminal litigation.

AUTHOR AND LEGAL SCHOLAR

Dr. Anthony Raju has authored numerous articles, books and legal writings on important dimensions of criminal justice and jurisprudence, including criminal jurisprudence, jail and prison reforms, the realities faced by undertrial prisoners, prisoners' rights, human rights and criminal justice administration.

His writings reflect an engagement with criminal law not merely as a profession, but as a field of jurisprudence, constitutional responsibility and social justice.

NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC SPEAKER

Dr. Anthony Raju has been recognised on national and international platforms for his contribution as a public speaker and legal voice on criminal law, criminal justice, human rights, prison reforms, constitutional safeguards and contemporary legal issues.

VISITING LEGAL FACULTY

As Visiting Legal Faculty, he brings practical courtroom experience and legal scholarship into the classroom, engaging with law students, young advocates and legal professionals on criminal law, evidence, advocacy, jurisprudence and justice administration.

A CAREER BEYOND THE COURTROOM

COURTROOM ADVOCACY
CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE
LEGAL WRITING
AUTHORSHIP
LEGAL EDUCATION
PUBLIC SPEAKING
PRISON REFORMS
HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSTITUTIONAL ADVOCACY

Dr. Anthony Raju's professional journey reflects one continuing commitment:

TO UNDERSTAND THE LAW DEEPLY.

TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE FEARLESSLY.

TO QUESTION WHAT MUST BE QUESTIONED.

TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION.

AND TO ADVOCATE FOR JUSTICE WITH KNOWLEDGE, PREPARATION AND CONVICTION.

DR. ANTHONY RAJU

ADVOCATE, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

WhatsApp and Legal Helpline: +91 8588872001

Email: office@humanrightscouncil.in

LEGAL DISCLAIMER

This profile is intended for professional and legal-awareness purposes. No particular case outcome is guaranteed. Every matter depends upon its facts, evidence, applicable law, judicial precedents and determination by the competent Court.

#DrAnthonyRaju #AnthonyRaju #AdvocateSupremeCourt #SupremeCourtAdvocate #CriminalLawExpert #CriminalLawyerIndia #CriminalDefence #POCSOExpert #POCSOLawyer #POCSOAdvocate #CriminalJurisprudence #LegalScholar #LegalAuthor #CriminalJustice #JailReforms #PrisonReforms #UndertrialRights #PrisonersRights #HumanRights #ConstitutionalRights #BailLawyer #CriminalAppeal #LegalEducation #VisitingFaculty #PublicSpeaker #LegalSpeaker #SupremeCourtOfIndia #IndianLaw #RuleOfLaw #Justice #DueProcess #DrAnthonyRajuAdvocate #POCSOCaseExpert #CriminalLitigation #HumanRightsAdvocate #dowrydeath #rape #ED #CBI #NIA #PMLA #NDPS #SCSTCASES #GangsterACT

Complied by

Dr June Ann

Research Scholar

जमुई की नाबालिग छात्रा के साथ कथित दुर्व्यवहार की घटना पर AICHLS की कड़ी निंदा, दोषियों के विरुद्ध त्वरित एवं कानूनसम्मत कार्रवाई की मांग

Administrator — Tue, 22 Sep 2026 14:46:27 +0530

प्रेस विज्ञप्ति
“हम सिर्फ राजनीति करते रहे और हमारी बेटियां असुरक्षित रह गईं” — डॉ. एंथनी राजू
जमुई की नाबालिग छात्रा के साथ कथित दुर्व्यवहार की घटना पर AICHLS की कड़ी निंदा, दोषियों के विरुद्ध त्वरित एवं कानूनसम्मत कार्रवाई की मांग
नई दिल्ली, 22 सितंबर 2026

बिहार के जमुई में दो नाबालिग छात्रों के साथ कथित मारपीट, दुर्व्यवहार एवं नाबालिग छात्रा के साथ छेड़छाड़ की सामने आई घटना अत्यंत चिंताजनक है। घटना का वीडियो सोशल मीडिया पर सामने आने के बाद पुलिस द्वारा कार्रवाई शुरू की गई है और तीन आरोपियों की गिरफ्तारी तथा SIT जांच की जानकारी सामने आई है।

All India Council of Human Rights, Liberties & Social Justice (AICHLS) इस घटना की कड़ी निंदा करता है और मांग करता है कि मामले की जांच पूरी निष्पक्षता, संवेदनशीलता और तेजी के साथ की जाए।

डॉ. एंथनी राजू, एडवोकेट, सुप्रीम कोर्ट ऑफ इंडिया एवं चेयरमैन, All India Council of Human Rights, Liberties & Social Justice, ने कहा:

“हम सिर्फ राजनीति करते रहे और हमारी बेटियां असुरक्षित रह गईं। किसी भी बच्चे को सड़क पर इस प्रकार भय, अपमान और हिंसा का सामना करना पड़े—यह केवल एक परिवार की पीड़ा नहीं, बल्कि पूरे समाज के लिए गंभीर चेतावनी है।”
उन्होंने कहा कि बच्चों की सुरक्षा किसी भी राजनीतिक बहस से ऊपर होनी चाहिए। राजनीतिक आरोप-प्रत्यारोप के बजाय इस समय प्राथमिकता पीड़ित बच्चों की सुरक्षा, उनकी गरिमा और उन्हें न्याय दिलाना होनी चाहिए।

AICHLS की प्रमुख मांगें
घटना में शामिल सभी आरोपियों की पहचान कर कानून के अनुसार शीघ्र कार्रवाई की जाए।
जांच को निष्पक्ष एवं समयबद्ध तरीके से पूरा किया जाए तथा उपलब्ध वीडियो, CCTV, मोबाइल/डिजिटल साक्ष्य और अन्य इलेक्ट्रॉनिक साक्ष्यों को सुरक्षित किया जाए।
नाबालिग पीड़ितों की पहचान और निजता की पूर्ण सुरक्षा सुनिश्चित की जाए।
सोशल मीडिया पर प्रसारित वीडियो से पीड़ित बच्चों की पहचान उजागर न हो और कानून के अनुरूप आवश्यक कार्रवाई की जाए।
पीड़ित बच्चों एवं उनके परिवार को आवश्यक कानूनी, मनोवैज्ञानिक एवं सुरक्षा सहायता उपलब्ध कराई जाए।
यदि जांच में POCSO Act अथवा अन्य लागू कानूनों के अंतर्गत अपराध प्रमाणित होते हैं, तो कानून के अनुसार कठोर और शीघ्र अभियोजन सुनिश्चित किया जाए।
ऐसी घटनाओं की पुनरावृत्ति रोकने के लिए संवेदनशील क्षेत्रों में पुलिस गश्त, प्रकाश व्यवस्था और बच्चों की सुरक्षा संबंधी प्रभावी व्यवस्था की समीक्षा की जाए।
डॉ. एंथनी राजू ने कहा:

“बच्चे किसी राजनीतिक दल की संपत्ति नहीं हैं। वे हमारे देश का भविष्य हैं। उनकी सुरक्षा सरकार, पुलिस, प्रशासन, समाज और प्रत्येक नागरिक की सामूहिक जिम्मेदारी है। राजनीति बाद में हो सकती है—लेकिन किसी बच्चे की सुरक्षा के लिए कार्रवाई आज ही होनी चाहिए।”
उन्होंने यह भी कहा कि न्याय केवल गिरफ्तारी तक सीमित नहीं होना चाहिए। निष्पक्ष जांच, विधिसम्मत अभियोजन, पीड़ितों की सुरक्षा और न्यायिक प्रक्रिया का प्रभावी संचालन—इन सभी चरणों को समान गंभीरता से सुनिश्चित करना आवश्यक है।

AICHLS पीड़ित बच्चों और उनके परिवार के साथ अपनी एकजुटता व्यक्त करता है तथा प्रशासन से अपील करता है कि इस मामले में कानून के अनुसार शीघ्र, निष्पक्ष और पारदर्शी कार्रवाई सुनिश्चित की जाए।

— डॉ. एंथनी राजू
Advocate, Supreme Court of India
Chairman
All India Council of Human Rights, Liberties & Social Justice (AICHLS)

यह प्रेस विज्ञप्ति उपलब्ध मीडिया रिपोर्टों के आधार पर है। आरोपों की अंतिम सत्यता और आपराधिक दायित्व का निर्धारण सक्षम जांच एवं न्यायिक प्रक्रिया द्वारा किया जाना है।

DR. ANTHONY RAJU

ADVOCATE, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Dr. Anthony Raju represents a distinctive blend of courtroom advocacy, criminal-law scholarship, legal education, authorship and human-rights advocacy.

THE CRIMINAL LAW APPROACH

Serious criminal litigation demands far more than an argument in court.

It demands the ability to examine every component of the prosecution case.

FACTS

What is alleged, what is established and what remains to be proved.

EVIDENCE

Oral, documentary, medical, forensic, electronic and scientific evidence must be examined with precision.

WITNESSES

Credibility, consistency, reliability, contradictions, omissions and material improvements require careful scrutiny.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

A carefully structured cross-examination can test the credibility of witnesses, expose inconsistencies and place material facts before the Court.

MEDICAL AND FORENSIC EVIDENCE

Medical records, DNA evidence, FSL reports and other scientific evidence may become critical components of a serious criminal trial.

INVESTIGATION

The legality, fairness, completeness and reliability of the investigation require close examination.

PROCEDURE

Every relevant statutory and constitutional safeguard must be carefully considered.

LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE

Facts and evidence must ultimately be tested against statutory provisions, constitutional principles and binding judicial precedents.

COURTROOM STRATEGY

FACTS + EVIDENCE + WITNESSES + CROSS-EXAMINATION + PROCEDURE + LAW + JURISPRUDENCE

This integrated approach forms the foundation of serious criminal litigation.

AUTHOR AND LEGAL SCHOLAR

His writings reflect an engagement with criminal law not merely as a profession, but as a field of jurisprudence, constitutional responsibility and social justice.

NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC SPEAKER

VISITING LEGAL FACULTY

A CAREER BEYOND THE COURTROOM

COURTROOM ADVOCACY
CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE
LEGAL WRITING
AUTHORSHIP
LEGAL EDUCATION
PUBLIC SPEAKING
PRISON REFORMS
HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSTITUTIONAL ADVOCACY

Dr. Anthony Raju's professional journey reflects one continuing commitment:

TO UNDERSTAND THE LAW DEEPLY.

TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE FEARLESSLY.

TO QUESTION WHAT MUST BE QUESTIONED.

TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION.

AND TO ADVOCATE FOR JUSTICE WITH KNOWLEDGE, PREPARATION AND CONVICTION.

DR. ANTHONY RAJU

ADVOCATE, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

WhatsApp and Legal Helpline: +91 8588872001

Email: office@humanrightscouncil.in

LEGAL DISCLAIMER

Complied by

Dr June Ann

Research Scholar

भारत के सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने POCSO Act की धारा 6 और IPC की धारा 363 के तहत दोषसिद्ध एक व्यक्ति को बरी कर दिया।

Administrator — Sat, 19 Sep 2026 14:21:21 +0530

The Supreme Court of India acquitted a man convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 363 of the IPC, ruling that statutory presumptions of guilt are not absolute.

Case Overview: Deepak (in JC) v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Date of Judgment: September 17, 2026
Bench: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria
Previous Rulings: Set aside the conviction and sentence upheld by the Delhi High Court (originating from a 2015 South Delhi case).
Key Legal Rulings

Presumption Not Absolute: Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act (reverse burden of proof) do not relieve the prosecution of its primary duty to establish foundational facts beyond a reasonable doubt.
Scrutiny of Evidence: Courts must independently examine the evidence and cannot mechanically rely on statutory presumptions when the prosecution's story suffers from material contradictions or lack of corroboration.
Rebuttal of Guilt: Once an accused exposes significant inconsistencies, the statutory presumption of guilt loses its legal effectiveness.
Aspect
Details
Acts Involved
POCSO Act (Section 6) & IPC (Section 363)
Trial Sentence
10 years rigorous imprisonment (POCSO) + 1 year (Section 363)
Outcome
Conviction set aside; appellant acquitted

कानूनी जागरूकता के लिए

भारत के सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने POCSO Act की धारा 6 और IPC की धारा 363 के तहत दोषसिद्ध एक व्यक्ति को बरी कर दिया। न्यायालय ने स्पष्ट किया कि POCSO Act की धारा 29 और 30 में दी गई कानूनी धारणा (Statutory Presumption) अपने आप में दोषसिद्धि का आधार नहीं बन सकती।

मामले का नाम

Deepak (in JC) v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

निर्णय की तारीख: 17 सितंबर 2026
पीठ: न्यायमूर्ति प्रशांत कुमार मिश्रा एवं न्यायमूर्ति एन.वी. अंजारिया
मामले की पृष्ठभूमि: यह मामला वर्ष 2015 के दक्षिण दिल्ली के एक मामले से संबंधित था। ट्रायल कोर्ट की दोषसिद्धि और उसके बाद दिल्ली हाई कोर्ट द्वारा बरकरार रखी गई सजा को सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने निरस्त कर दिया।
सुप्रीम कोर्ट की प्रमुख कानूनी बातें

1. धारा 29 और 30 की धारणा पूर्ण नहीं है
POCSO Act की धारा 29 और 30 के तहत अभियुक्त के विरुद्ध कानूनी धारणा लागू होने के बावजूद, अभियोजन पक्ष को पहले अपराध के आवश्यक मूलभूत तथ्यों (Foundational Facts) को विश्वसनीय साक्ष्य से स्थापित करना होता है।

2. केवल Presumption के आधार पर दोषसिद्धि नहीं
अदालत अभियोजन के साक्ष्य की स्वतंत्र रूप से जांच करेगी। यदि अभियोजन की कहानी में महत्वपूर्ण विरोधाभास, असंगतियां या पर्याप्त corroboration का अभाव हो, तो केवल statutory presumption के आधार पर दोषसिद्धि नहीं की जा सकती।

3. अभियुक्त को प्रभावी बचाव का अधिकार
यदि बचाव पक्ष अभियोजन के महत्वपूर्ण साक्ष्यों में गंभीर विरोधाभास या कमियां सामने लाता है, तो अदालत को उन कमियों का स्वतंत्र रूप से मूल्यांकन करना होगा।

मामले का सार

पहलू
विवरण
लागू कानून
POCSO Act धारा 6 एवं IPC धारा 363
ट्रायल कोर्ट की सजा
POCSO के तहत 10 वर्ष का कठोर कारावास + IPC धारा 363 के तहत 1 वर्ष
बाद की स्थिति
दिल्ली हाई कोर्ट ने दोषसिद्धि/सजा को बरकरार रखा था
सुप्रीम कोर्ट का निर्णय
दोषसिद्धि और सजा निरस्त
अंतिम परिणाम
अपीलकर्ता बरी
सबसे महत्वपूर्ण Legal Awareness Point

“POCSO में Presumption है, लेकिन Presumption का मतलब Automatic Conviction नहीं है।”

अदालत को पहले यह देखना होता है कि अभियोजन ने अपने मामले के मूलभूत तथ्यों को विश्वसनीय और कानूनी रूप से स्वीकार्य साक्ष्य से स्थापित किया है या नहीं।

यह सामग्री केवल कानूनी जागरूकता एवं शैक्षणिक उद्देश्य के लिए है। किसी विशेष मामले में तथ्य, साक्ष्य और लागू कानून के आधार पर स्वतंत्र कानूनी सलाह आवश्यक है।

DR. ANTHONY RAJU

ADVOCATE, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Dr. Anthony Raju represents a distinctive blend of courtroom advocacy, criminal-law scholarship, legal education, authorship and human-rights advocacy.

THE CRIMINAL LAW APPROACH

Serious criminal litigation demands far more than an argument in court.

It demands the ability to examine every component of the prosecution case.

FACTS

What is alleged, what is established and what remains to be proved.

EVIDENCE

Oral, documentary, medical, forensic, electronic and scientific evidence must be examined with precision.

WITNESSES

Credibility, consistency, reliability, contradictions, omissions and material improvements require careful scrutiny.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

A carefully structured cross-examination can test the credibility of witnesses, expose inconsistencies and place material facts before the Court.

MEDICAL AND FORENSIC EVIDENCE

Medical records, DNA evidence, FSL reports and other scientific evidence may become critical components of a serious criminal trial.

INVESTIGATION

The legality, fairness, completeness and reliability of the investigation require close examination.

PROCEDURE

Every relevant statutory and constitutional safeguard must be carefully considered.

LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE

Facts and evidence must ultimately be tested against statutory provisions, constitutional principles and binding judicial precedents.

COURTROOM STRATEGY

FACTS + EVIDENCE + WITNESSES + CROSS-EXAMINATION + PROCEDURE + LAW + JURISPRUDENCE

This integrated approach forms the foundation of serious criminal litigation.

AUTHOR AND LEGAL SCHOLAR

His writings reflect an engagement with criminal law not merely as a profession, but as a field of jurisprudence, constitutional responsibility and social justice.

NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC SPEAKER

VISITING LEGAL FACULTY

A CAREER BEYOND THE COURTROOM

COURTROOM ADVOCACY
CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE
LEGAL WRITING
AUTHORSHIP
LEGAL EDUCATION
PUBLIC SPEAKING
PRISON REFORMS
HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSTITUTIONAL ADVOCACY

Dr. Anthony Raju's professional journey reflects one continuing commitment:

TO UNDERSTAND THE LAW DEEPLY.

TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE FEARLESSLY.

TO QUESTION WHAT MUST BE QUESTIONED.

TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION.

AND TO ADVOCATE FOR JUSTICE WITH KNOWLEDGE, PREPARATION AND CONVICTION.

DR. ANTHONY RAJU

ADVOCATE, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

WhatsApp and Legal Helpline: +91 8588872001

Email: office@humanrightscouncil.in

LEGAL DISCLAIMER

Complied by

Dr June Ann

Research Scholar

POCSO केस खारिज: सुप्रीम कोर्ट की बड़ी टिप्पणी — बरी होना भी हर नुकसान की भरपाई नहीं कर सकता Dr. Anthony Raju, Advocate Supreme Court & POCSO Expert की कानूनी राय

Administrator — Tue, 15 Sep 2026 16:18:17 +0530

POCSO केस खारिज: सुप्रीम कोर्ट की बड़ी टिप्पणी — बरी होना भी हर नुकसान की भरपाई नहीं कर सकता

Dr. Anthony Raju, Advocate Supreme Court & POCSO Expert की कानूनी राय

सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) के प्रावधानों के संबंध में एक महत्वपूर्ण फैसला दिया है। इस फैसले में कोर्ट ने स्पष्ट किया कि POCSO जैसे कड़े कानून का इस्तेमाल तभी किया जाना चाहिए जब आरोपित अपराध के सभी आवश्यक वैधानिक तत्व (statutory ingredients) रिकॉर्ड पर उपलब्ध सामग्री से सामने आते हों।

Bhaskar Paul v. State of West Bengal मामले में सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने पश्चिम बंगाल के एक Geography शिक्षक के खिलाफ चल रही आपराधिक कार्यवाही को समाप्त कर दिया। शिक्षक पर POCSO के तहत Aggravated Sexual Assault का आरोप लगाया गया था।

इस फैसले की एक महत्वपूर्ण बात यह है कि कोर्ट ने माना कि POCSO की कार्यवाही का प्रभाव केवल अदालत तक सीमित नहीं रहता। किसी व्यक्ति पर यौन अपराध का आरोप लगना उसकी प्रतिष्ठा, नौकरी, करियर और पारिवारिक जीवन पर गंभीर प्रभाव डाल सकता है। बाद में मिली बरी की राहत भी हमेशा उस नुकसान को पूरी तरह समाप्त नहीं कर सकती।

आरोप क्या थे?

मामला Class X की छात्राओं की शिकायतों से जुड़ा था।

आरोपों के अनुसार, शिक्षक द्वारा कक्षा में छात्रों के साथ शारीरिक व्यवहार किया गया था। आरोपों में छात्रों को उत्तर न देने पर मारना, पीठ पर हाथ लगाना, कमर में चुटकी काटना तथा एक छात्रा की गर्दन को नाखून से छूने जैसी बातें शामिल थीं।

कुछ छात्राओं ने शिक्षक के देखने के तरीके को भी अनुचित बताया।

इसके बाद शिक्षक के खिलाफ POCSO Act की Section 10 के तहत FIR दर्ज की गई।

मामला अंततः सुप्रीम कोर्ट पहुंचा, जब Calcutta High Court ने कार्यवाही को समाप्त करने से इनकार कर दिया।

सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने अपराध के वास्तविक Ingredients को देखा

इस मामले में सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने POCSO की Sections 7, 9(f) और 10 के प्रावधानों पर विचार किया।

यह इस फैसले का सबसे महत्वपूर्ण कानूनी पहलू है।

Section 7 POCSO

Section 7 में Sexual Assault की परिभाषा दी गई है और इसमें physical contact के साथ sexual intent का होना आवश्यक तत्व है।

Section 9 POCSO

Section 9 उन परिस्थितियों को बताता है जिनमें Sexual Assault Aggravated Sexual Assault बन सकता है। इनमें educational institution से जुड़े कुछ आरोपी भी शामिल हैं।

Section 10 POCSO

Section 10 Aggravated Sexual Assault के लिए सजा का प्रावधान करता है।

इसलिए कोर्ट ने केवल यह सवाल नहीं पूछा कि “क्या physical contact हुआ था?”

बल्कि महत्वपूर्ण सवाल यह था:

क्या उपलब्ध सामग्री से POCSO के तहत आवश्यक “sexual intent” और अन्य वैधानिक ingredients स्थापित होते हैं?

सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने मामले के तथ्यों और उपलब्ध सामग्री का परीक्षण करने के बाद माना कि लगाए गए आरोप Section 10 के तहत आवश्यक aggravated sexual assault के ingredients को स्थापित नहीं करते थे।

केवल Physical Contact से हर मामला POCSO Sexual Assault नहीं बन जाता

यह इस फैसले का अत्यंत महत्वपूर्ण कानूनी संदेश है।

Dr. Anthony Raju, Advocate Supreme Court & POCSO Expert के अनुसार:

“हर POCSO मामले में अभियोजन पक्ष को उस विशेष धारा के सभी आवश्यक ingredients साबित करने होते हैं, जिसके तहत आरोपी पर आरोप लगाया गया है। केवल physical contact होने से statutory requirement of sexual assault समाप्त नहीं हो जाती।”

इसका अर्थ यह बिल्कुल नहीं है कि बच्चे की शिकायत को नजरअंदाज किया जाए।

बल्कि इसका अर्थ है कि जांच और ट्रायल में यह निर्धारित होना चाहिए कि आरोपित कृत्य वास्तव में कानून में परिभाषित अपराध के सभी आवश्यक तत्वों को पूरा करता है या नहीं।

एक महत्वपूर्ण अंतर समझना जरूरी है:

अनुशासनात्मक misconduct
अनुचित physical conduct
accidental contact
सामान्य physical interaction
Sexual Assault
हर स्थिति के कानूनी परिणाम समान नहीं होते।

“Sexual Intent” क्यों महत्वपूर्ण है?

Section 7 POCSO के मामलों में sexual intent एक महत्वपूर्ण statutory requirement हो सकती है।

Dr. Anthony Raju कहते हैं:

“POCSO defence में सबसे पहले यह देखना चाहिए कि आरोपी के खिलाफ कौन-सी धारा लगाई गई है और उस धारा के आवश्यक ingredients क्या हैं। केवल ‘bad touch’ का आरोप या physical contact का आरोप अपने आप में हर परिस्थिति में POCSO offence साबित नहीं करता।”

हालांकि, sexual intent का निर्धारण केवल आरोपी के कथन से नहीं होता। कोर्ट मामले के पूरे facts and circumstances, conduct, context, statements और अन्य उपलब्ध evidence को देखती है।

इसलिए प्रत्येक मामले का मूल्यांकन उसके अपने तथ्यों और साक्ष्यों के आधार पर होना आवश्यक है।

Magistrate के सामने दिए गए Statements भी महत्वपूर्ण

सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने छात्राओं के Magistrate के सामने दर्ज किए गए statements पर भी विचार किया।

वर्तमान प्रक्रिया में Section 183 BNSS के तहत दर्ज statement, पुराने CrPC में Section 164 के अनुरूप प्रक्रिया से संबंधित है।

कोर्ट ने उपलब्ध statements को देखते हुए यह जांचा कि क्या उनसे aggravated sexual assault के आवश्यक ingredients सामने आते हैं।

Defence के लिए महत्वपूर्ण Lesson:

POCSO केस में केवल FIR पढ़ना पर्याप्त नहीं है।

एक अनुभवी defence analysis में तुलना की जानी चाहिए:

FIR → Police Statements → Magistrate Statement → Medical Evidence → Witness Statements → Electronic Evidence → Investigation Record → Charge-sheet → Statutory Ingredients

यदि विभिन्न stages पर material contradictions, omissions या महत्वपूर्ण बदलाव दिखाई देते हैं, तो उनका कानूनी प्रभाव मामले के facts और evidence के आधार पर जांचना आवश्यक है।

Delay और Hearsay Evidence पर भी ध्यान

सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने FIR दर्ज होने में हुई देरी तथा school authorities की भूमिका को भी देखा।

मामले में Headmaster और कुछ teachers के statements की evidentiary nature भी महत्वपूर्ण बनी क्योंकि वे कथित घटनाओं के प्रत्यक्ष eyewitnesses न होकर छात्रों द्वारा कही गई बातों को दोहरा रहे थे।

Dr. Anthony Raju की राय:

“किसी व्यक्ति द्वारा किसी अन्य व्यक्ति से सुनी गई बात अपने आप substantive evidence नहीं बन जाती। अदालत को प्रत्येक गवाह की जानकारी के स्रोत और उसके evidentiary value का परीक्षण करना होता है।”

इसलिए defence को यह देखना चाहिए कि:

किसने घटना देखी?
किसने केवल सुना?
किसने किस समय शिकायत की?
पहली शिकायत में क्या कहा गया?
बाद के statements में क्या जोड़ा गया?

सुप्रीम कोर्ट की सबसे महत्वपूर्ण टिप्पणी: बरी होना भी नुकसान खत्म नहीं करता

इस फैसले का सबसे प्रभावशाली पहलू यही है।

सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने माना कि किसी शिक्षक या अन्य व्यक्ति पर sexual offence का आरोप लगने के बाद उसकी professional reputation और जीवन पर गंभीर प्रभाव पड़ सकता है।

बाद में यदि आरोपी acquit भी हो जाए, तब भी समाज और profession में हुई क्षति को हमेशा पूरी तरह वापस नहीं लाया जा सकता।

अर्थात:

“Acquittal may be wholly inadequate to undo the damage.”

इस टिप्पणी का व्यापक महत्व है।

एक POCSO prosecution का प्रभाव हो सकता है:

नौकरी पर
professional reputation पर
परिवार पर
सामाजिक प्रतिष्ठा पर
career progression पर
भविष्य के professional opportunities पर
इसलिए criminal justice system में Child Protection और Fair Trial दोनों महत्वपूर्ण हैं।

क्या यह फैसला POCSO कानून को कमजोर करता है?

नहीं।

इस फैसले को POCSO के खिलाफ फैसला समझना सही नहीं होगा।

POCSO बच्चों को sexual offences से सुरक्षा देने वाला एक महत्वपूर्ण और कठोर कानून है।

लेकिन:

कड़ा कानून होने का अर्थ यह नहीं है कि statutory ingredients की आवश्यकता समाप्त हो जाती है।

सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने corporal punishment या बच्चों के साथ अनुचित व्यवहार को स्वीकार नहीं किया।

लेकिन कोर्ट ने यह अंतर स्पष्ट किया कि:

हर अनुचित व्यवहार = Aggravated Sexual Assault नहीं होता।

किसी व्यवहार के लिए disciplinary या अन्य कानूनी कार्रवाई संभव हो सकती है, लेकिन POCSO के तहत conviction/prosecution के लिए संबंधित अपराध के statutory ingredients का पूरा होना आवश्यक है।

Dr. Anthony Raju की Defence-Law Checklist

POCSO मामले में defence को निम्नलिखित बिंदुओं की गंभीरता से जांच करनी चाहिए:

1. सबसे पहले Exact Section देखें

क्या मामला Section 3 का है?

Section 4?

Section 7?

Section 9?

Section 10?

हर section के ingredients अलग हो सकते हैं।

2. Sexual Intent की जांच करें

जहां Section 7 लागू है, वहां alleged act, circumstances, conduct और surrounding facts के संदर्भ में sexual intent के statutory requirement को examine करना महत्वपूर्ण है।

3. FIR और बाद के Statements की तुलना करें

देखें:

FIR में क्या कहा गया?

फिर:

Police Statement में क्या कहा गया?

फिर:

Magistrate Statement में क्या कहा गया?

और:

Trial में testimony क्या रही?

हर difference अपने आप contradiction नहीं होता, लेकिन material contradictions और omissions का evidentiary significance हो सकता है।

4. Direct और Hearsay Evidence अलग करें

क्या witness ने घटना स्वयं देखी?

या उसने केवल किसी दूसरे व्यक्ति से सुना?

यह distinction evidence analysis में महत्वपूर्ण हो सकता है।

5. Delay को Context में देखें

FIR में delay होने का अर्थ अपने आप यह नहीं है कि allegation false है।

लेकिन unexplained या significant delay, जब अन्य evidentiary circumstances के साथ मौजूद हो, तो अदालत के सामने relevant circumstance बन सकता है।

6. Independent और Electronic Evidence देखें

मामले के facts के अनुसार defence को निम्न evidence की जांच करनी चाहिए:

CCTV
Attendance records
School records
Mobile records
Location data
Digital communications
Independent witnesses
Medical evidence
Documentary evidence
ऐसे evidence को कानून के अनुसार preserve और produce करना महत्वपूर्ण है।

इस Judgment का बड़ा संदेश

सुप्रीम कोर्ट का यह फैसला investigators, prosecutors, defence lawyers और courts सभी के लिए महत्वपूर्ण संदेश देता है:

“बच्चों की सुरक्षा सर्वोच्च है, लेकिन criminal offence के statutory ingredients भी उतने ही महत्वपूर्ण हैं।”

POCSO के तहत गंभीर आरोप लगाने से पहले यह देखना आवश्यक है कि उपलब्ध material वास्तव में संबंधित offence के ingredients को disclose करता है या नहीं।

साथ ही, किसी बच्चे के साथ अनुचित व्यवहार को केवल इसलिए सामान्य नहीं माना जा सकता कि POCSO का कोई विशेष charge establish नहीं हुआ।

Misconduct और POCSO offence के बीच कानूनी अंतर को समझना जरूरी है।

Dr. Anthony Raju का अंतिम संदेश

“POCSO बच्चों की सुरक्षा के लिए है, लेकिन न्याय की मांग है कि प्रत्येक आरोपी पर सही statutory provision के तहत और legally sustainable evidence के आधार पर ही कार्रवाई हो। POCSO allegation अत्यंत गंभीर होता है। इसलिए victim के अधिकारों के साथ-साथ accused के constitutional और statutory safeguards का भी सम्मान होना चाहिए।”

Bhaskar Paul v. State of West Bengal का महत्व इसी बात में है कि यह कोई सामान्य POCSO exemption नहीं बनाता, बल्कि यह सिद्धांत मजबूत करता है कि हर आपराधिक आरोप में संबंधित offence के आवश्यक ingredients को facts और evidence के आधार पर स्थापित करना आवश्यक है।

सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने Calcutta High Court के आदेश को set aside करते हुए संबंधित criminal proceedings को quash कर दिया और appellant को liberty प्रदान की।

=====

DR. ANTHONY RAJU

ADVOCATE, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Dr. Anthony Raju represents a distinctive blend of courtroom advocacy, criminal-law scholarship, legal education, authorship and human-rights advocacy.

THE CRIMINAL LAW APPROACH

Serious criminal litigation demands far more than an argument in court.

It demands the ability to examine every component of the prosecution case.

FACTS

What is alleged, what is established and what remains to be proved.

EVIDENCE

Oral, documentary, medical, forensic, electronic and scientific evidence must be examined with precision.

WITNESSES

Credibility, consistency, reliability, contradictions, omissions and material improvements require careful scrutiny.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

A carefully structured cross-examination can test the credibility of witnesses, expose inconsistencies and place material facts before the Court.

MEDICAL AND FORENSIC EVIDENCE

Medical records, DNA evidence, FSL reports and other scientific evidence may become critical components of a serious criminal trial.

INVESTIGATION

The legality, fairness, completeness and reliability of the investigation require close examination.

PROCEDURE

Every relevant statutory and constitutional safeguard must be carefully considered.

LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE

Facts and evidence must ultimately be tested against statutory provisions, constitutional principles and binding judicial precedents.

COURTROOM STRATEGY

FACTS + EVIDENCE + WITNESSES + CROSS-EXAMINATION + PROCEDURE + LAW + JURISPRUDENCE

This integrated approach forms the foundation of serious criminal litigation.

AUTHOR AND LEGAL SCHOLAR

His writings reflect an engagement with criminal law not merely as a profession, but as a field of jurisprudence, constitutional responsibility and social justice.

NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC SPEAKER

VISITING LEGAL FACULTY

A CAREER BEYOND THE COURTROOM

COURTROOM ADVOCACY
CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE
LEGAL WRITING
AUTHORSHIP
LEGAL EDUCATION
PUBLIC SPEAKING
PRISON REFORMS
HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSTITUTIONAL ADVOCACY

Dr. Anthony Raju's professional journey reflects one continuing commitment:

TO UNDERSTAND THE LAW DEEPLY.

TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE FEARLESSLY.

TO QUESTION WHAT MUST BE QUESTIONED.

TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION.

AND TO ADVOCATE FOR JUSTICE WITH KNOWLEDGE, PREPARATION AND CONVICTION.

DR. ANTHONY RAJU

ADVOCATE, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

WhatsApp and Legal Helpline: +91 8588872001

Email: office@humanrightscouncil.in

LEGAL DISCLAIMER

Complied by

Dr June Ann

Research Scholar

Landmark Judgement : principles governing grant of bail, criminal antecedents, disclosure of material facts, and interference with an erroneous bail order.

Administrator — Mon, 14 Sep 2026 14:44:42 +0530

LEGAL NOTE

Zeba Khan v. State of U.P. & Ors.

2026 INSC 144 | Supreme Court of India

Explained by Dr. Anthony Raju
Advocate, Supreme Court of India

INTRODUCTION

The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Zeba Khan v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2026 INSC 144, is an important decision on the principles governing grant of bail, criminal antecedents, disclosure of material facts, and interference with an erroneous bail order.

The judgment is particularly significant for criminal practitioners because it clarifies the important distinction between cancellation of bail and setting aside an unsustainable order granting bail.

1. BAIL IS A JUDICIAL DISCRETION

Grant of bail involves the exercise of judicial discretion.

Although personal liberty under Article 21 is of fundamental importance, the Court must consider all relevant circumstances, including:

Nature and gravity of the accusation

Specific role of the accused

Prima facie material

Criminal antecedents

Possibility of influencing witnesses

Possibility of tampering with evidence

Possibility of repetition of the offence

Likelihood of absconding

Interests of fair administration of criminal justice

Therefore, bail cannot be granted mechanically.

2. CANCELLATION OF BAIL AND SETTING ASIDE OF BAIL ORDER

This is the most important principle.

Cancellation of Bail means cancellation of a validly granted bail because of subsequent conduct or supervening circumstances, such as threatening witnesses, tampering with evidence, violating bail conditions, absconding or committing another offence.

Setting Aside the Bail Order means that the original order granting bail itself suffers from illegality, perversity, non application of mind, or failure to consider material and relevant factors.

In the latter situation, a Superior Court can interfere with the original bail order even without establishing subsequent misconduct by the accused.

3. DISCLOSURE OF CRIMINAL ANTECEDENTS

A person seeking discretionary relief from a Court must approach the Court with full and candid disclosure of material facts.

The applicant should disclose, wherever relevant:

Previous FIRs

Criminal cases

Sections involved

Present status of cases

Previous bail applications

Orders passed on earlier bail applications

Non Bailable Warrants

Proclamation proceedings

Other material criminal proceedings

The purpose is simple.

The Court must receive a complete and accurate picture before exercising its discretion.

4. SUPPRESSION OF MATERIAL FACTS

Suppression becomes particularly serious where the undisclosed fact is material to the decision on bail.

For example, if an applicant claims that there are no criminal antecedents while material criminal proceedings are pending and such information could influence the Court's assessment of bail, the Court may consider the suppression seriously.

However, every FIR cannot automatically be treated as proof of guilt.

An FIR is not a conviction.

The Court must assess the nature, status, relevance and circumstances of each antecedent.

5. LESSON FOR DEFENCE COUNSEL

Before filing a bail application, counsel should carefully verify:

FIR

Criminal Antecedents

Previous Bail Applications

Bail Rejection Orders

Non Bailable Warrants

Proclamation Proceedings

Trial Status

Custody Status

A complete and truthful disclosure protects both the litigant and the integrity of the proceedings.

6. LESSON FOR PROSECUTION AND COMPLAINANT

Where a bail order has been passed without consideration of material circumstances, the challenge should not be presented merely as:

The accused has violated bail.

The proper question may instead be:

Was the original order granting bail itself legally sustainable?

If relevant material was ignored or discretion was exercised perversely, the Superior Court can examine the legality and propriety of the original order.

7. IMPORTANCE FOR POCSO CASES

Although Zeba Khan is not a POCSO specific judgment, its general principles concerning bail are relevant while arguing criminal bail matters, including POCSO cases.

In a POCSO bail matter, the Court must additionally consider the applicable statutory provisions and the facts relating to the child, allegations, evidence, accused's role, witness protection and stage of proceedings.

Therefore, Zeba Khan should be used as a general bail jurisprudence authority, along with POCSO specific precedents.

KEY TAKEAWAY

A bail order is not beyond judicial scrutiny merely because bail has already been granted.

If the original bail order is legally unsustainable, perverse, or passed without considering material factors, a Superior Court can interfere.

At the same time:

Criminal antecedent is relevant, but an FIR is not a conviction.

Each case must be judicially assessed on its own facts.

LEGAL AWARENESS NOTE

Explained by:

Dr. Anthony Raju
Advocate, Supreme Court of India

WhatsApp and Legal Helpline: 8588872001

Email: office@humanrightscouncil.in

Disclaimer: This Legal Note is intended solely for legal education and awareness. It should not be treated as case specific legal advice. The application of the judgment depends upon the facts and circumstances of each individual case.

#LegalNote #SupremeCourtIndia #ZebaKhan #Bail #CriminalLaw #BailJurisprudence #CriminalAntecedents #LegalAwareness #POCSO #YoungLawyers #DrAnthonyRaju #simanncorps #drjuneann

================

DR. ANTHONY RAJU

ADVOCATE, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Dr. Anthony Raju represents a distinctive blend of courtroom advocacy, criminal-law scholarship, legal education, authorship and human-rights advocacy.

THE CRIMINAL LAW APPROACH

Serious criminal litigation demands far more than an argument in court.

It demands the ability to examine every component of the prosecution case.

FACTS

What is alleged, what is established and what remains to be proved.

EVIDENCE

Oral, documentary, medical, forensic, electronic and scientific evidence must be examined with precision.

WITNESSES

Credibility, consistency, reliability, contradictions, omissions and material improvements require careful scrutiny.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

A carefully structured cross-examination can test the credibility of witnesses, expose inconsistencies and place material facts before the Court.

MEDICAL AND FORENSIC EVIDENCE

Medical records, DNA evidence, FSL reports and other scientific evidence may become critical components of a serious criminal trial.

INVESTIGATION

The legality, fairness, completeness and reliability of the investigation require close examination.

PROCEDURE

Every relevant statutory and constitutional safeguard must be carefully considered.

LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE

Facts and evidence must ultimately be tested against statutory provisions, constitutional principles and binding judicial precedents.

COURTROOM STRATEGY

FACTS + EVIDENCE + WITNESSES + CROSS-EXAMINATION + PROCEDURE + LAW + JURISPRUDENCE

This integrated approach forms the foundation of serious criminal litigation.

AUTHOR AND LEGAL SCHOLAR

His writings reflect an engagement with criminal law not merely as a profession, but as a field of jurisprudence, constitutional responsibility and social justice.

NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC SPEAKER

VISITING LEGAL FACULTY

A CAREER BEYOND THE COURTROOM

COURTROOM ADVOCACY
CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE
LEGAL WRITING
AUTHORSHIP
LEGAL EDUCATION
PUBLIC SPEAKING
PRISON REFORMS
HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSTITUTIONAL ADVOCACY

Dr. Anthony Raju's professional journey reflects one continuing commitment:

TO UNDERSTAND THE LAW DEEPLY.

TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE FEARLESSLY.

TO QUESTION WHAT MUST BE QUESTIONED.

TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION.

AND TO ADVOCATE FOR JUSTICE WITH KNOWLEDGE, PREPARATION AND CONVICTION.

DR. ANTHONY RAJU

ADVOCATE, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

WhatsApp and Legal Helpline: +91 8588872001

Email: office@humanrightscouncil.in

LEGAL DISCLAIMER

Complied by

Dr June Ann

Research Scholar

“न्यायाधीश को शक्तिशाली लोगों से नहीं डरना चाहिए — न्याय निर्भीक रहना चाहिए।”*

Administrator — Tue, 08 Sep 2026 16:18:22 +0530

“न्यायाधीश को शक्तिशाली लोगों से नहीं डरना चाहिए — न्याय निर्भीक रहना चाहिए।”*

*डॉ. एंथनी राजू, अधिवक्ता, सर्वोच्च न्यायालय, भारत, माननीय अपर जिला एवं सत्र न्यायाधीश **श्री रवि कुमार दिवाकर* द्वारा न्यायिक साहस, स्वतंत्रता और Rule of Law को लेकर व्यक्त विचारों की सम्मानपूर्वक सराहना करते हैं।

विभिन्न मीडिया रिपोर्टों के अनुसार, न्यायाधीश रवि कुमार दिवाकर ने गंभीर आपराधिक मामलों को उनकी अदालत से स्थानांतरित किए जाने पर चिंता व्यक्त की और आरोप लगाया कि इससे माफिया, गैंगस्टर अथवा अपराधियों को लाभ हो सकता है। उन्होंने न्यायिक कर्तव्य को भय के अधीन न करने की बात भी कही।

उन्होंने कथित रूप से कहा कि वे *“कायर न्यायाधीश कहलाने से बेहतर मरना पसंद करेंगे।”* इस टिप्पणी को कई मीडिया संस्थानों ने रिपोर्ट किया है।

रिपोर्टों के अनुसार, उनकी अदालत से लगभग *97 गंभीर/हत्या के मामलों को वापस लिए जाने या स्थानांतरित किए जाने* की जानकारी सामने आई है। इस संबंध में मीडिया रिपोर्टों ने प्रशासनिक आदेश और संबंधित अधिकारियों के बयानों का भी उल्लेख किया है।

### *मेरा स्पष्ट मत*

एक अधिवक्ता के रूप में मेरा मानना है कि *निर्भीक और स्वतंत्र न्यायपालिका लोकतंत्र की आधारशिला है।*

न्यायाधीश का निर्णय केवल *कानून, साक्ष्य और न्यायिक विवेक* पर आधारित होना चाहिए—किसी अपराधी, माफिया, राजनीतिक प्रभाव, सामाजिक दबाव या भय पर नहीं।

### *“न्याय के दो मापदंड नहीं हो सकते।”*

**न माफिया कानून से ऊपर।
न सत्ता कानून से ऊपर।
न प्रभाव कानून से ऊपर।
न भय कानून से ऊपर।**

हालांकि, मामलों के स्थानांतरण और उससे जुड़े कारणों पर लगाए गए आरोप गंभीर हैं। इनका अंतिम सत्यापन और मूल्यांकन *उचित संस्थागत प्रक्रिया, निष्पक्ष जांच और सत्यापन योग्य तथ्यों* के आधार पर ही होना चाहिए।

न्यायपालिका की गरिमा *मौन से नहीं, बल्कि पारदर्शिता, जवाबदेही और विधि के शासन* से मजबूत होती है।

### **न्याय केवल दिया नहीं जाना चाहिए—

## न्याय निर्भीक भी रहना चाहिए।**

*— डॉ. एंथनी राजू*
*अधिवक्ता, सर्वोच्च न्यायालय, भारत*

---

## *मीडिया स्रोत / Media Reports*

* [LiveLaw — UP Judge Ravi Kumar Diwakar's remarks](https://www.livelaw.in/amp/news-updates/up-judge-ravi-kumar-diwakar-cases-withdrawn-mafia-criminals-548996?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
* [Bar & Bench — Criminal cases transferred from judge's court](https://www.barandbench.com/news/up-judge-claims-criminal-cases-were-transferred-from-his-court-to-benefit-gangsters-mafia?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
* [India Today — Judge's remarks and case transfers](https://www.indiatoday.in/india/law-news/story/up-additional-sessions-judge-ravi-kumar-diwakar-says-he-would-prefer-death-to-being-called-a-coward-judge-2989675-2026-09-08?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
* [The Statesman — “I would rather die than be called a coward judge”](https://www.thestatesman.com/cities/lucknow/i-would-rather-die-than-be-called-a-coward-judge-up-judge-ravi-kumar-diwakar-1503636053.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
* [PTI/Rediff — UP sessions judge's statement](https://www.rediff.com/news/report/up-sessions-court-judge-says-would-prefer-death-to/20260908.htm?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
* [ABP Live — Judge's 23rd death sentence and reported allegations](https://news.abplive.com/news/india/i-would-prefer-death-than-being-called-coward-judge-awards-23rd-death-penalty-in-4-months-1865753?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
* [Times of India — 97 case files recalled / 23rd death sentence](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/agra/judge-awards-23rd-death-sentence-in-muzaffarnagar/amp_articleshow/133889698.cms?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
* [The Indian Express — 97 murder cases moved from judge's court](https://indianexpress.com/article/legal-news/22-death-sentences-100-murder-cases-moved-up-judge-10841302/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)

Citation for Most Rev. Dr. Anthony Raju

Advocate, Supreme Court of India | Global Peace & Human Rights Defender

In deep recognition and honour of Most Rev. Dr. Anthony Raju, a towering luminary in the field of law, human rights, and global peace diplomacy, whose exemplary dedication and unparalleled contribution to the cause of justice, social reform, and human dignity have earned him the stature of one of the most respected and authoritative voices on Human Rights and Constitutional Law in the world today.

Dr. Anthony Raju stands as a beacon of hope and advocacy for the voiceless, vulnerable, and marginalised communities, both in India and internationally. He is an internationally accredited Human Rights & Peace Ambassador, a leading criminal and constitutional expert, and a dynamic Supreme Court Advocate whose legal acumen has shaped public discourse, influenced reforms, and ensured access to justice across strata.

With a remarkable career spanning over 15 years, Dr. Raju has championed a wide spectrum of causes—from combating child labour and custodial torture to defending press freedom, women’s rights, and the rights of tribals and refugees. His legal activism is deeply rooted in constitutional morality, social justice, and ethical governance.

As the Chairman of the All India Council of Human Rights, Liberties and Social Justice, he leads one of the most respected human rights movements in India. A United Nations Peace Ambassador, TEDx Speaker, Disaster Management Expert, International Law Faculty, and Humanitarian Strategist, his contributions have been formally recognized with numerous national and international awards and honorary doctorates, including from the International Peace University of Germany and the Universal Academy for Global Peace.

An eloquent public speaker, a prolific writer, and a respected media panelist, Dr. Raju has addressed audiences across continents, advocating for global peace, human development, and constitutional values. His leadership and fieldwork in tribal, rural, and conflict-affected zones stand testimony to his commitment to nation-building and grassroots transformation.

Dr. Raju’s life mission exemplifies the highest ideals of compassion, courage, and constitutionalism, making him not only a legal icon but a true changemaker of our generation.

This citation is respectfully presented in recognition of his enduring legacy and outstanding service to humanity.

#DrAnthonyRaju #RaviKumarDiwakar #UPJudge #JudicialIndependence #JudicialCourage #RuleOfLaw #IndianJudiciary #Justice #ConstitutionOfIndia #AccessToJustice #LegalProfession #Judiciary #UttarPradesh #SupremeCourt #JusticeForAll

DR. ANTHONY RAJU ⚖️ ADVOCATE | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ???? WELL-KNOWN CRIMINAL ADVOCATE | HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDER

Administrator — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 18:33:14 +0530

⚖️ DR. ANTHONY RAJU — ADVOCATE, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DEFENDING LIBERTY. FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE. UPHOLDING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
When a person’s liberty, dignity and future are at stake, every legal battle demands experience, preparation and determination.
In the complex landscape of criminal law, cases involving arrest, prolonged incarceration, serious allegations and criminal convictions can have profound consequences for individuals and their families.

Dr. Anthony Raju, Advocate, Supreme Court of India, is a well-known criminal advocate handling serious, sensitive and complex criminal litigation, with particular experience in matters involving bail, suspension of sentence and appeals against conviction.

His legal practice encompasses cases where personal liberty, constitutional safeguards and due process of law are of critical importance.

???? SPECIALISED CRIMINAL LAW PRACTICE
Dr. Anthony Raju handles and advises on a wide range of serious criminal and related proceedings, including:

⚖️ BAIL & LIBERTY MATTERS
Regular Bail • Anticipatory Bail • Bail in Serious Offences

Where liberty is at stake, timely and carefully prepared legal representation can be crucial.

⚖️ SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE & PUNISHMENT
Legal representation in matters seeking suspension of sentence/punishment and appropriate relief during appellate proceedings, subject to the facts and law applicable to each case.

⚖️ APPEALS AGAINST CONVICTION
Challenging criminal convictions through strategic appellate litigation, including examination of evidence, legal findings, procedural issues and grounds available in law.

⚖️ SERIOUS & SENSITIVE CRIMINAL CASES
Representation in matters involving allegations under serious criminal laws, including:

POCSO • Rape & Sexual Offences • Dowry Death • Serious Criminal Offences

These cases demand sensitivity, meticulous preparation and a firm understanding of criminal procedure and evidentiary law.

⚖️ SPECIAL AGENCIES & SPECIAL LAWS
Experience in matters involving agencies and legislation including:

ED • CBI • UAPA

Such proceedings can involve complex investigations, stringent statutory provisions and significant questions concerning individual liberty and legal safeguards.

⚖️ NCLT & RELATED LITIGATION
Handling matters involving corporate disputes, insolvency-related proceedings and connected litigation before the NCLT, where appropriate.

????️ LIBERTY IS A CONSTITUTIONAL VALUE
The criminal justice system is not merely about allegations and accusations. It is also about evidence, procedure, fairness, accountability and the protection of constitutional rights.

The principle of presumption of innocence, due process and the right to a fair legal process forms an essential part of the rule of law.

Every case has its own facts.

Every accused person has a right to legal representation.

And every legal remedy must be pursued strictly within the framework of law.

???????? A VOICE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
Beyond courtroom advocacy, Dr. Anthony Raju is associated with public-interest work concerning human rights, constitutional protections, human dignity and institutional accountability.

As a Human Rights Defender and public-interest legal advocate, he has consistently emphasised the importance of protecting fundamental rights while strengthening confidence in the rule of law.

JUSTICE MUST BE FAIR.
LIBERTY MUST BE PROTECTED.
THE CONSTITUTION MUST PREVAIL.

⚔️ STRATEGY. PREPARATION. REPRESENTATION.
Serious criminal litigation requires more than simply appearing in court.

It demands:

✔️ Detailed examination of the case record
✔️ Careful assessment of evidence
✔️ Identification of legal and procedural issues
✔️ Strategic preparation of bail and appellate remedies
✔️ Effective courtroom advocacy
✔️ Protection of constitutional and statutory rights

Dr. Anthony Raju, Advocate, Supreme Court of India, provides legal representation in accordance with the facts of each case and the remedies available under law.

“WHEN LIBERTY IS AT STAKE, KNOW YOUR RIGHTS. SEEK PROPER LEGAL REPRESENTATION.”
#DrAnthonyRaju #SupremeCourtOfIndia #CriminalAdvocate #CriminalLaw #BailMatter #AnticipatoryBail #RegularBail #SuspensionOfSentence #AppealAgainstConviction #POCSO #RapeCases #DowryDeath #EDCases #UAPA #CBI #NCLT #HumanRightsDefender #HumanRights #ConstitutionalRights #RuleOfLaw #Justice #Liberty #DueProcess #LegalRights #IndianLaw