Calcutta High Court Says 60-Day BNSS Discharge Window Applies To POCSO Trials, Sets Aside Charges
Does the 60-day BNSS discharge window reach POCSO trials? The Calcutta High Court has said it does, holding that the period runs from the day the accused receives the complete set of prosecution documents and setting out a procedure for Special Courts.
Kolkata: A trial court cannot act “merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution”, the Calcutta High Court has said while setting aside an order framing charges in a POCSO case, where the accused had not been given the complete prosecution papers. The Court also held that the 60-day period under Section 250(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for seeking discharge applies to trials under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [Suvradip Halder v. The State of West Bengal & Anr.].
Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee allowed the criminal revision petition, CRR 307 of 2026, filed against an order of December 3, 2025 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chandannagore, Hooghly. That order had framed charges under Sections 127(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, read with Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.
A fixed sequence for Special Courts
The High Court set out the steps a Special Court must follow. The date on which all prosecution documents are served on the accused is to be treated as the date of commitment for Section 250(1). Copies are to be supplied under Section 231 of the BNSS once the accused appears after cognizance. From then, he may seek discharge within 60 days of receiving the full set, or state in writing that he does not wish to, after which the hearing on charge begins at once. A discharge application has to be decided within 60 days of filing, and if the accused is not discharged, the hearing on charge must follow within another 60 days.
Why the BNSS applies
The POCSO Act has no commitment procedure, the Court noted, because a Special Court takes cognizance directly under Section 33(1). It drew on Section 262(1) of the BNSS, which counts the 60 days from supply of documents in warrant cases, to hold that in POCSO cases the period must run from the date the accused gets the full set of prosecution documents. The POCSO Act prescribes no procedure for discharge or framing of charges, and Section 33(9) asks Special Courts to follow sessions trial procedure as far as possible, so the BNSS provisions apply.
The Court also treated Section 31 of the POCSO Act as legislation by reference, which means later changes in criminal procedure law carry over to POCSO trials. It cited Ajoy Kumar Banerjee v. Union of India and S. Prakash v. K.M. Kurian for the point.
“The accused person’s right to prefer discharge application within a reasonable period on receipt of prosecution/police papers is an unalienable facet of article 21 of the Constitution.”
The papers that did not arrive
The petitioner told the High Court that, despite repeated requests, he had not received the full prosecution documents, including four seizure lists, medical reports and his own medical report, nor a notice under Section 179 of the BNSS. The trial court had acknowledged the gaps and on October 24, 2025 directed the prosecution to supply the missing copies. On December 3, 2025, however, it framed charges without recording whether that direction had been complied with.
The State argued that Section 35 of the POCSO Act, which requires a child’s evidence to be recorded within 30 days of cognizance, justified moving straight to charge and overrode the discharge provisions in Sections 250 and 251 of the BNSS.
Speed is no answer to missing safeguards
Relying on Md. Hussain v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and Anokhilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court said the push for speedy trials in child sexual abuse cases cannot be used to deny procedural safeguards, and that framing of charges requires a judicial look at the material.
“The trial court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution.”
Setting aside the December 3, 2025 order, the Court directed the trial court to supply the complete prosecution documents, including the missing papers, within two weeks of receiving its order. The petitioner may then seek discharge within 60 days, and any such application must be disposed of within 60 days.
The allegations against the petitioner remain to be tested at trial. The High Court’s ruling concerns only the procedure for discharge and framing of charges and expresses no view on the merits of the case. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Why the judgment matters
POCSO Special Courts work under tight timelines meant to spare child witnesses long waits, and some courts have read those timelines as leaving no room for a discharge stage. The ruling gives Special Courts in West Bengal a clear sequence that keeps both goals: the accused must get the full papers and a fixed window to seek discharge, while each stage is capped at 60 days so the trial does not drift. It also guards against charges being framed mechanically on incomplete records.
Case Title: Suvradip Halder v. The State of West Bengal & Anr. [CRR 307 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, Calcutta High Court
Date of Judgment: Not available in the source
Impugned Order: December 3, 2025, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chandannagore, Hooghly
If you know of a child in need of care and protection, call CHILDLINE at 1098.
Thanks for reading LawChakra
Get the day’s key court rulings by email or WhatsApp. Free.