High Court Ignored POCSO’s Statutory Rigour, Committed Grave Error in Granting Bail: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Gang-Rape Accused

“Where Bail Order Results in Miscarriage of Justice, It Must Be Undone – The Accused Cannot Be Allowed to Move Freely While the Minor Victim Lives in Fear”, In a judgment that forcefully reaffirms the principles governing bail in heinous sexual offences against minors, the Supreme Court on 9 January 2026 set aside a bail order passed by the Allahabad High Court, holding that the order was “manifestly perverse, legally unsustainable, and contrary to statutory mandates under the POCSO Act and BNSS.”

The Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan, deciding X v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 2026 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8173 of 2025), was dealing with a cancellation of bail application filed by the family of a 14-year-old minor victim, who was allegedly gang-raped, repeatedly assaulted under threat with a firearm, and blackmailed using video recordings of the assaults.

Criticising the grant of bail to the prime accused Arjun by the High Court, the Supreme Court held:

“The High Court failed to consider the gravity of the offences, the statutory rigour of the POCSO Act, and the vulnerability of the minor victim. The order is vitiated by serious legal error and must be set aside in the interest of justice.”

“Consent Is Irrelevant Where the Victim Is a Minor – The Accused Cannot Hide Behind Fabricated Romance”: SC Rejects Consensual Relationship Defence

One of the central arguments made before the Court by the accused was that the case stemmed from a consensual association between him and the victim, which had allegedly been disapproved by her family. Rejecting this defence outright, the Court ruled:

“The plea of consensual relationship is wholly untenable in law, particularly when the victim is undisputedly a minor, and the case involves coercion, repeated assault, and armed intimidation.”

The victim's school records confirmed her date of birth as 18 July 2010, and even the medical assessment placed her age between 16–17 years. Thus, there was no factual dispute regarding her minority. The Court held that once minority is established, the POCSO Act’s presumption under Section 29 applies, and “consent” becomes legally immaterial.

“Delay in FIR Can’t Dilute Gravity of Offence Where Minor Is Threatened with Firearm and Blackmail” – Supreme Court Affirms Victim-Centric View

The accused had relied heavily on alleged delay in filing the FIR—a familiar defence tactic in sexual offence cases. The FIR, though based on events spanning six months, was registered only on 2 December 2024, a day after the victim was finally able to escape her captors and contact her family.

Rejecting this line of argument, the Court emphasized:

“Delay in filing the FIR in cases involving child sexual abuse cannot, by itself, be fatal. The delay was reasonably explained by the fear, trauma and threats faced by the minor victim.”

Referring to the precedent in Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar, the Court reiterated that societal and psychological factors must be factored in while evaluating delay in sexual offences involving children.

“Bail Cannot Be Granted on Irrelevant Grounds or in Mechanical Reliance on Precedents” – SC Faults High Court’s Misreading of Bail Law

A striking feature of the High Court’s bail order, which drew sharp disapproval from the Supreme Court, was its reliance on judgments such as Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, to justify grant of bail in a heinous POCSO case.

The Supreme Court clarified:

“Satender Kumar Antil lays down broad parameters, but it cannot be applied mechanically to cases involving aggravated sexual assault on children. The factual matrix here demanded heightened judicial sensitivity and legal scrutiny.”

The Court held that the High Court had “ignored relevant evidence, considered immaterial factors, and exercised discretion perversely,” particularly when the charges included Sections 5(l) and 6 of the POCSO Act, attracting punishment of life imprisonment or even death.

“When Bail Order Ignores Evidence and Victim’s Safety, Cancellation Is Not Only Justified But Necessary” – Supreme Court Cancels Bail and Orders Surrender

The Supreme Court invoked its powers to cancel bail not only on the ground of post-bail intimidation, but also due to the perversity of the original bail order. It ruled:

“The High Court's omission to consider the victim’s statements under Section 183 BNSS, medico-legal findings, and counselling reports—each corroborating the trauma and repeated sexual assault—amounts to material non-consideration and miscarriage of justice.”

Highlighting subsequent intimidation by the accused, the Court noted that the minor victim had stopped attending school due to constant threats, stalking, and fear of further violence. The Bench remarked:

“In offences of this nature, the victim’s safety and the integrity of the trial must be the Court’s paramount concern. Accused cannot be allowed to walk free while the victim lives in fear.”

Accordingly, the Court cancelled the bail and directed the accused to surrender within two weeks, failing which the Trial Court was empowered to take coercive steps for securing custody.

“Statutory Rigour of POCSO Cannot Be Blunted by Judicial Leniency”: Supreme Court Reaffirms Tough Standards for Bail in Child Sexual Abuse Cases

In its concluding remarks, the Supreme Court reminded that the POCSO Act is a special statute intended to shield children from sexual violence, and any leniency shown at the pre-trial stage could endanger the purpose of the law.

Referring to State of Bihar v. Rajballabh Prasad, the Court reiterated:

“Bail orders that allow accused in heinous POCSO cases to roam free weaken the prosecution and create an adverse societal impact. Fair trial is only possible when the victim is assured of safety and the process is insulated from intimidation.”

The Court directed the Trial Court to expedite the case, stating that justice delayed in child sexual abuse cases can permanently damage the victim’s rehabilitation and dignity.

Bail Is Not a Matter of Routine in Heinous Sexual Offences Against Children

The judgment is a resounding reminder that bail in POCSO cases is not a mere formality, but a judicial responsibility of the highest order. The Supreme Court has drawn a clear line: Courts must not close their eyes to victim vulnerability, community interest, and the statutory severity of the offences involved.

By setting aside a legally flawed bail order, the Court has not only protected the rights of the minor victim but also reaffirmed public confidence in the criminal justice system—that it will act swiftly and sensitively in the face of grave abuse.

Date of Decision: 9 January 2026