Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-000164-000164 – 2026 |
| Diary Number | 26489/2025 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN |
| Bench |
|
| Precedent Value | Binding authority |
| Overrules / Affirms | Overrules the High Court order granting bail |
| Type of Law | Criminal law – bail under POCSO Act and BNSS |
| Questions of Law | Whether bail can be granted in cases of repeated gang-rape of a minor under the POCSO Act when a chargesheet has been filed and prima facie material exists; whether the High Court erred by ignoring gravity, statutory rigour, victim vulnerability and risk of intimidation |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Supreme Court held that in offences under the POCSO Act involving repeated sexual assault of a minor—with armed intimidation and recording for blackmail—bail cannot be granted without full regard to the statutory rigour, gravity of the offence, vulnerability of the victim and risk of witness tampering. The High Court’s reliance on general bail precedents without correlating them to the facts, its failure to notice that the chargesheet was already filed and its disregard of prima facie material rendered its exercise of discretion perverse. Bail may be cancelled if the order ignores relevant material factors or is founded on irrelevant considerations, especially in heinous crimes against children. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | A 14-year-old minor was repeatedly abducted, threatened with a firearm and gang-raped over six months, with acts recorded for blackmail. FIR No. 426/2024 was registered on 02.12.2024 under the BNSS and POCSO Act. Chargesheet filed on 19.02.2025. Trial court denied bail; High Court granted bail on 09.04.2025. State’s appeal challenged that bail order. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts and tribunals on bail in POCSO offences |
| Overrules | High Court order in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9829 of 2025 |
| Distinguishes | Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI; Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement |
| Follows | Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu @ Depak and another |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Bail in serious POCSO offences involving minors cannot be granted by ignoring prima facie material such as victim’s statement and medico-legal evidence.
- Filing of chargesheet prior to bail application is a material factor that must be noticed by the court.
- Courts must weigh gravity of offence, statutory rigour, victim’s vulnerability and risk of witness intimidation in every bail decision.
- Bail orders based on mechanical application of general guidelines without fact-specific correlation are liable to be set aside.
- Post-bail conduct that intimidates the victim and risks fair trial can justify cancellation of bail.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Prima facie material: Victim’s detailed statement under Section 183 BNSS and medico-legal report establish repeated penetrative assault, use of weapon and recording for blackmail.
- Statutory rigour: POCSO Act offences are non-compoundable, attract life imprisonment, and consent is legally irrelevant.
- Bail principles: Section 439(2) CrPC empowers courts to cancel bail if orders ignore relevant factors or are perverse; protection of fair trial and victim safety is paramount.
- High Court’s errors: Failure to notice that chargesheet was filed, disregard of gravity of offence, unduly relying on general bail precedents without correlating facts.
- Precedents applied: Bhagwan Singh on cancellation of bail in POCSO cases, State of Bihar v. Rajballav Prasad on intimidation risks, Padmausundara Rao on mechanical reliance over factual analysis.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant – State of Uttar Pradesh)
- The High Court granted bail despite serious gang-rape allegations against a 14-year-old, armed intimidation and blackmail recordings.
- The chargesheet was filed before bail application; omission amounts to abuse of process.
- Victim’s consistent statements and MLC report corroborate repeated sexual assault and threats.
- Continuing liberty of the accused poses risk of intimidation to the minor and witnesses.
- Reliance on Deepak Yadav and related precedents shows bail cancellation is warranted where material ignored.
Respondent No. 2 (Accused)
- The allegations are malicious, stemming from family’s disapproval of consensual association.
- Delay in FIR, inconsistencies between statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, and absence of medical injuries undermine credibility.
- Alibi supported by evidence of absence from place of occurrence.
- He is a young first-time accused who has complied with bail conditions and poses no flight risk.
- High Court’s well-reasoned order should not be disturbed under Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar and Arjun Jalba Ichke.
Factual Background
A minor of approximately 14 years was acquainted with the accused for six months and was allegedly abducted, threatened with a handgun, repeatedly gang-raped and filmed for blackmail. The family lodged a complaint leading to FIR No. 426/2024 on 02.12.2024 under BNSS and POCSO Act. The accused was arrested on 03.01.2025, denied bail by the trial court on 13.02.2025, but released by the High Court on 09.04.2025. The State appealed against the grant of bail.
Statutory Analysis
- BNSS Sections 65(1), 74, 137(2), 352: prescribe life imprisonment/long terms for rape, kidnapping, assault with intent to outrage modesty.
- POCSO Act Sections 5(1), 6, 9(g), 10: define penetrative and aggravated sexual assault on children with life imprisonment or death. Consent irrelevant, offences non-compoundable.
- BNSS Sections 180 & 183 (CrPC Sections 161 & 164) for recording of statements.
- CrPC Section 439(2): cancels bail when granted on perverse or unjustified grounds.
- Emphasis on statutory presumption of minority and victim’s inalienable protection.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed