Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan set aside the Allahabad High Court’s order granting bail to an accused in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, holding that the bail order was perverse, unreasonable, and ignored relevant material on record. The Court cancelled the bail while allowing an appeal filed by the complainant/victim. The allegations concern rape and sexual assault on a minor girl, including repeated penetrative sexual assault allegedly committed under armed intimidation, with the acts stated to have been recorded and used for blackmail. The Bench noted that filing of a chargesheet does not by itself bar consideration of bail, but courts must consider the nature of the allegations and the investigation material. It directed the accused to surrender within two weeks, failing which steps were to be taken to secure custody, and asked the trial court to prioritise the trial.

The criminal appeal arose from an order of the Allahabad High Court granting bail to an accused in connection with an FIR registered for offences under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The prosecution case alleged that the accused, who was known to the minor victim, repeatedly subjected her to sexual assault over a period of six months by threatening her with a country-made firearm. It was further alleged that the victim was abducted on a motorcycle, molested, and later abandoned, after which the incident was disclosed to her family.

Also Read: 'Harsh To Send Him Behind Bars At This Stage': Supreme Court Reduces 80 Year Old Convict’s Sentence To Period Already Undergone

The FIR was registered a day after the alleged incident. During investigation, the victim’s statements were recorded, her date of birth was verified through educational records, and a medico-legal examination was conducted. A chargesheet was subsequently filed invoking provisions relating to rape, aggravated penetrative sexual assault, kidnapping, and intimidation. The trial court rejected the bail application, but the High Court granted bail, leading to the present appeal seeking cancellation of bail.

The Supreme Court examined the material placed on record and recorded that “the present case involves allegations of gang rape of a minor coupled with the recording of sexual assault and threats of circulation.” It observed that the submission of a consensual relationship was “wholly untenable in law, particularly where the allegations extend beyond a single accused and involve coercion, intimidation and multiple perpetrators.”

The Court stated that “the statements of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS read with the Medico-legal examination report prima facie establish the commission of the alleged offences.” It further observed that “It is settled law that the mere filing of a chargesheet does not, by itself, preclude consideration of an application for bail. However, while assessing such an application, the Court is duty-bound to have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence and the material collected during investigation. The offences alleged in the present case are heinous and grave involving repeated penetrative sexual assault upon a minor victim committed under armed intimidation and accompanied by recording of the acts for the purpose of blackmail. Such conduct has a devastating impact on the life of the victim and shakes the collective conscience of society.”

The Court observed that the High Court “failed to take into account the nature and gravity of the offences and the statutory rigour under the provisions of the POCSO Act,” and that the omission to notice the filing of the chargesheet coupled with prima facie material rendered the grant of bail “manifestly erroneous.” It further recorded that the victim resided in the same locality as the accused and that counselling reports showed fear and psychological distress, giving rise to “a real and imminent apprehension of intimidation and further trauma to the victim.”

Also Read: S. 223, 226 BNSS | Magistrate Must Examine Complainant On Oath, Then Give Accused Hearing Notice Before Cognizance: Gauhati High Court

The Supreme Court directed that “the impugned judgment dated 09.04.2025 passed by the High Court cannot be sustained in law and is accordingly set aside.” It ordered that “the bail granted to Respondent No. 2 – accused is cancelled.”

The Court further directed that “Respondent No. 2 – accused is directed to surrender before the jurisdictional Court within a period of two weeks from today,” and clarified that “in the event of his failure to do so, the trial Court shall take appropriate steps in accordance with law to secure his custody.” The trial court was also directed to give priority to the case and conclude the trial expeditiously.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellant: Mr. Md. Ali, AOR Ms. Shalu, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR Mr. Ghanshyam Singh, Adv. Mr. Adesh Kr. Gill, Adv. Mr. Akas Gothwal, Adv. Dr. Reji Kumarr., Adv. Mr. Anurag Pandey, Adv. Mr. Suraj Pal Singh Mina, Adv. Mr. Nagenra Singh, Adv. Ms. Akansha, AOR Mr. Naman Raj Singh, Adv. Mr. Sparsh Choudhary, Adv. Ms. Srishti Mishra, Adv. Ms. Anjali Saxena, Adv. Dr. Amardeep Gaur, Adv.

Case Title: X v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 44
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 2026
Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice R. Mahadevan