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 |
|
| Overrules / Affirms | Overrules the impugned High Court judgment granting bail |
| Type of Law | Criminal law (POCSO Act, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) |
| Questions of Law | Whether a bail order in a case of aggravated sexual assault and gang-rape of a minor under the POCSO Act can ignore the nature and gravity of the offence, the prima facie material on record and the victim’s vulnerability, particularly after the filing of a chargesheet. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The grant of bail in offences under the POCSO Act involving repeated penetrative sexual assault, armed intimidation and recording for blackmail must be based on the nature and gravity of the offence, the vulnerability of the minor victim and the prima facie material collected during investigation. Mere filing of a chargesheet does not preclude bail but courts must not ignore these material factors or the risk of witness intimidation. A bail order that fails to consider the statutory rigour of the POCSO Act, the traumatized state of the victim and the likelihood of tampering with evidence is manifestly erroneous and warrants cancellation. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon | The Court applied established principles on bail cancellation under Section 439/482 CrPC, emphasizing: seriousness and gravity of offences; statutory rigour of the POCSO Act; vulnerability and trauma of a minor victim; risk of witness intimidation and evidence tampering; and the collective conscience of society. It distinguished precedents based on factual matrix and held mechanical reliance on unrelated guidelines as impermissible. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
| Overrules | High Court’s order dated 09.04.2025 granting bail in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9829 of 2025 |
| Distinguishes | Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51; Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024 INSC 595) |
| Follows | Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu @ Depak (2023) 13 SCC 549; State of Bihar v. Rajballav Prasad (2017) 2 SCC 178 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reinforces that bail in POCSO offences must consider the heinous nature of repeated penetrative assault, armed intimidation and recording for blackmail.
- Clarifies that filing of a chargesheet does not bar bail per se but courts cannot ignore prima facie material and victim vulnerability.
- Emphasizes risk of witness intimidation when accused and victim reside in the same locality; bail may be cancelled to protect the trial process.
- Warns against mechanical reliance on general bail guidelines without factual correlation.
- Affirms that an order granting bail without due regard to POCSO’s statutory rigour is perverse and subject to interference.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined the victim’s statements under Section 183 BNSS and the medico-legal report, confirming repeated gang-rape of a minor under threat and recording for blackmail.
- It held that offences under Sections 5(1), 6, 9(g), 10 POCSO Act are heinous, gravely affecting the victim and society’s conscience.
- While a chargesheet alone does not preclude bail, courts must weigh the nature and gravity of the offence, the victim’s vulnerability and the risk of evidence tampering.
- The High Court’s order was manifestly erroneous for omitting these material factors and not acknowledging the statutory strictures of the POCSO Act.
- Relying on precedents such as Bhagwan Singh and State of Bihar v. Rajballav Prasad, the Court held bail cancellation is warranted where the grant disregards relevant material or is founded on irrelevant considerations.
- It distinguished Satender Kumar Antil and Manish Sisodia for their differing factual matrices and warned against uncritical application of unrelated bail guidelines.
- Directing trial priority, the Court underscored the need for expeditious disposal while ensuring a fair trial and protection of the minor victim.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (State of Uttar Pradesh / Appellant):
- The High Court ignored the heinous nature of repeated gang-rape of a 14-year-old under deadly threat and recording for blackmail.
- Bail was granted despite the chargesheet having been filed, amounting to suppression of material fact.
- The victim’s detailed Section 183 BNSS statement and medico-legal report fully corroborate the allegations.
- Risk of intimidation, given the accused’s influential status and proximity to the victim, was overlooked.
- Cited Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P., Sonu Kushwaha, Ramji Lal Bairwa and other precedents on POCSO bail.
Respondent No. 2 (Accused):
- Alleges false, malicious prosecution arising from family animosity; the FIR was lodged after delay and escalation of allegations.
- Points to inconsistencies between statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS and absence of medical injuries.
- Claims alibi supported by documentary evidence and that he fully cooperated with investigation.
- Emphasizes young age, no antecedents and compliance with bail conditions; reliance on Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar and Arjun Jalba Ichke.
Factual Background
A minor aged approximately 14 was alleged to have been threatened with a country-made pistol, repeatedly abducted and gang-raped by the accused and his friends, with the acts recorded for blackmail. FIR No. 426/2024 was registered on 02.12.2024 under relevant sections of the BNSS and POCSO Act. A chargesheet followed on 19.02.2025 against Respondent No. 2 for multiple counts of rape and aggravated sexual assault. Despite a District Court bail rejection, the High Court granted bail on 09.04.2025, prompting this appeal.
Statutory Analysis
- Sections 5(1) & 6 POCSO Act: aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a minor, punishable by life imprisonment.
- Sections 9(g) & 10 POCSO Act: aggravated sexual assault and repeated assault on a child.
- Sections 65(1), 74, 137(2), 352 BNSS: kidnapping from lawful guardianship, use of criminal force, assault, and related offences.
- Section 482 CrPC inherent powers: supervisory jurisdiction to cancel bail orders that ignore material facts or are perverse.
- Statutory presumption of victim’s minority and irrelevance of consent under POCSO Act.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms established principles on bail cancellation in POCSO offences
- 🔄 Conflicting Decisions – Conflicts with the High Court’s grant of bail dated 09.04.2025