2. The present criminal appeal has been filed challenging the final judgment and order dated 09.04.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9829 of 2025, whereby the High Court granted bail to Respondent No. 2 – accused in connection with FIR No. 426/2024 registered with Police Station Kandhla, District Shamli, Uttar Pradesh for offences punishable under Sections 65(1), 74, 137(2) 352 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20232 and Sections 5(l), 6, 9(g) and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Facts
3. The case of the appellant as projected in this appeal is as follows:
Accused known to the minor victim having physical relation by threatening her: 3.1. Respondent No. 2 by name Arjun – accused was known to the minor victim for about six months prior to the incident. As per the statement of the minor victim, Respondent No. 2 repeatedly established physical relations with her by threatening her and pointing a locally made firearm (katta) at her. It is further stated that along with Respondent No. 2, his friends namely Goldi, Amit, Rupak and Vedansh used to abuse and molest the minor victim and also attempted to establish physical relations with her.
Accused abducted the victim and molested her: 3.2. On 01.12.2024 at around 05.30 p.m., when the minor victim was walking near her residence, the accused persons Arjun and Amit abducted her on their motorcycle, again molested her and ultimately abandoned her at Baraut Bus Stand, from where she contacted her uncle using a stranger’s mobile phone. Thereafter, the minor victim narrated the entire incident including the sexual assault committed by the accused persons over the past six months to her family members. Immediately, the family members of the minor victim rushed to the police station to lodge a complaint. However, the police failed to register the FIR on 01.12.2024 and instead advised the minor victim and her family members to compromise and settle the matter with the accused persons. Ultimately, FIR No. 426/2024 came to be registered on 02.12.2024 under Sections 75(2), 79 and 137(2) of the BNSS and Sections 9(g) and 10 of the POCSO Act against five accused persons including Respondent No. 2.
During investigation medical examination report revealed the sexual offence: 3.3. During the course of investigation, on 03.12.2024, the statements of the minor victim and her uncle were recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973). The investigating officer obtained a certificate from Inter College, Ailum, District Shamli, certifying the date of birth of the minor victim as 18.07.2010, which established that she was around 14 years of age at the time of the commission of the offence. On 05.12.2024, the statement of the minor victim was recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 164 Cr.P.C.) before the learned Magistrate, District Shamli, Uttar Pradesh. Thereafter, on 08.12.2024 the minor victim was medically examined and a medico-legal examination report was obtained, which revealed the gravity of the sexual offence committed against her.
Arrest of respondent no.2: 3.4. Due to the influence exerted by the family members of the accused, Respondent No. 2 was not arrested immediately after registration of the FIR dated 02.12.2024 and was arrested only on 03.01.2025. Subsequently, he filed bail application which came to be dismissed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Shamli on 13.02.2025.
Final report filed under BNS and POCSO Acts and bail granted: 3.5. Upon completion of investigation, the investigating officer filed chargesheet on 19.02.2025 for offences punishable under Sections 65(1), 74, 137(2) and 352 of the BNSS and 5(l), 6, 9(g) and 10 of the POCSO Act. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2 approached the High Court by filing Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9829 of 2025. By the impugned judgment dated 09.04.2025, the High Court allowed the said application and enlarged Respondent No. 2 on bail, subject to certain conditions. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal seeking cancellation of the bail granted to Respondent No. 2.
Analysis
7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for all the parties and perused the documents placed before us.
Present appeal pertains to respondent no.2 alone for granting of bail
8. The record reveals that the prosecution was instituted against Respondent No. 2 – accused on the basis of a complaint lodged by the uncle of the minor victim inter alia alleging commission of gang-rape, sexual assault and recording of the incident on a mobile phone for the purpose of blackmail. Initially, FIR No. 426/2024 was registered against five accused persons namely Respondent No. 2 Arjun (A1), Amit (A2), Goldi (A3), Rupak (A4) and Vedansh (A5). After investigation, chargesheet no. 38/2025 came to be filed on 19.02.2025 against Respondent No. 2 (A1) under Sections 65(1), 74, 137(2) and 352 of the BNSS and Sections 5(l), 6, 9(g) and 10 of the POCSO Act and against A2 to A4, excluding A5 under Sections 74 and 352 of the BNSS and Sections 9(g) and 10 of the POCSO Act. The present case pertains to Respondent No.2 (A1) alone.
Arguments for cancellation of bail
9. The principal plank of the submissions urged on behalf of the appellant is that the High Court erred in granting bail to Respondent No. 2 – accused without due consideration of the heinous nature of the acts alleged to have been committed against the minor victim. In support thereof, the learned counsel invited our attention to the nature and gravity of the offence alleged against Respondent No. 2 – accused and the maximum punishment prescribed under the applicable provisions of law, as follows:
“ …………… “
Statements during investigation demonstrates sexual assault: 9.1. Further, the learned counsel strongly relied on the statements of the minor victim recorded before the learned Magistrate and the Medical Officer, which, according to him, would categorically demonstrate the alleged acts of sexual assault, physical violence and recording of the incident for the purpose of blackmail. Therefore, it was submitted that the grant of bail to Respondent No. 2 – accused is wholly unjustified and unsustainable in law.
Respondent no.2 after released on bail continuously threatening the minor victim: 9.2. The learned counsel also moved an application seeking to place on record that subsequent to being released on bail, Respondent No. 2 has been continuously threatening and intimidating the minor victim. It was stated that both reside in the same village and that Respondent No. 2 stalks the victim whenever she goes to school or outside, intimidates her by glaring and showing a katta (country-made pistol), and plays songs glorifying violence to instill fear. Owing to such conduct, the victim has become afraid and has stopped attending school. A complaint dated 02.09.2025 in this regard has been lodged with the concerned police station and intimated to other authorities including the school authorities. Therefore, the learned counsel sought cancellation of the bail granted to Respondent No. 2.
Statements of victim and medico legal examination prima facie establish offence: 11. Having given our consideration to the rival submissions and the materials placed on record, we are of the considered view that the impugned judgment suffers from serious infirmities. The present case involves allegations of gang rape of a minor coupled with the recording of sexual assault and threats of circulation. The submission advanced on behalf of Respondent No. 2 regarding a consensual relationship is wholly untenable in law, particularly where the allegations extend beyond a single accused and involve coercion, intimidation and multiple perpetrators. 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.
Mere filing of a charge sheet does not preclude consideration of application of bail
12. 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.
High Court ought to have noticed filing of chargesheet filed coupled with available prima facie offences under POCSO before granting bail
13. The High Court, while granting bail to Respondent No. 2 – accused, failed to take into account the nature and gravity of the offences and the statutory rigour under the provisions of the POCSO Act. The omission to notice that the chargesheet had already been filed, coupled with the prima facie material emerging from the victim’s statements renders the exercise of discretion by the High Court manifestly erroneous. In Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu @ Depak and another, in the context of cancellation of bail in a POCSO offence, this Court has reiterated that bail granted without due consideration of material factors warrants interference. The following paragraphs are pertinent:
“ …..”
14. Moreover, the High Court failed to apply the settled parameters governing the grant of bail including the gravity of the offence, the vulnerability of the victim and the likelihood of witness intimidation. Instead, reliance was placed on Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement. While Satender Kumar Antil laid down general guidelines for the grant of bail, Manish Sisodia turned on the peculiar facts of prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay in trial. In the present case, however, Respondent No. 2 had remained in custody for only a few months. That apart, mechanical reliance on precedent without factual correlation is impermissible as authoritatively held by the Constitution Bench in Padmausundara Rao (Dead) and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others.
Bail not to be refused mechanically
16. It is equally well settled that while bail is not to be refused mechanically, it must not be granted on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring material evidence. Where an order granting bail is founded on an incorrect appreciation of facts or suffers from material omissions or where it results in miscarriage of justice, this Court is empowered to interfere. In the present case, the grant of bail by the High Court is vitiated by material misdirection and nonconsideration of relevant factors rendering the same manifestly perverse.
Conclusion
Bail order granted by High Court is set aside
17. In such view of the matter, the impugned judgment dated 09.04.2025 passed by the High Court cannot be sustained in law and is accordingly set aside. Consequently, the bail granted to Respondent No. 2 – accused is cancelled. Respondent No. 2 – accused is directed to surrender before the jurisdictional Court within a period of two weeks from today. In the event of his failure to do so, the trial Court shall take appropriate steps in accordance with law to secure his custody.
Need for expeditious disposal of POCSO cases
18. This Court is conscious of the fact that the POCSO Act is a beneficial legislation enacted to protect children from sexual offences and that proceedings under the said Act warrant prompt and sensitive handling. This Court has consistently emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of POCSO cases. At the same time, it is equally imperative that prosecutions must be subjected to careful judicial scrutiny so as to ensure that the process of law is not rendered oppressive. Accordingly, the trial Court is directed to give priority to the present case, conclude the trial and pass appropriate orders on its own merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.
Party
X vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another - Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8173 of 2025) - 2026 INSC 44 - January 09, 2026 – Hon’ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Mahadevan.
