Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
X – Appellant
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 2026 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8173 of 2025]
Decided On : 09-01-2026
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 483 – Bail – Grant of – FIR registered for offences punishable under Sections 65(1), 74, 137(2) 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 5(l), 6, 9(g) and 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Mere filing of charge-sheet does not, by itself, preclude consideration of application for bail – However, while assessing such application, Court is duty-bound to have due regard to nature and gravity of offence and material collected during investigation – Offences alleged in 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 – Gang rape of a minor coupled with recording of sexual assault and threats of circulation has devastating impact on life of victim and shakes collective conscience of society – Impugned judgment suffers from serious infirmities – Omission to notice that charge-sheet had already been filed, coupled with prima facie material emerging from victim’s statements renders exercise of discretion by High Court manifestly erroneous – High Court failed to apply settled parameters governing grant of bail including gravity of offence, vulnerability of victim and likelihood of witness intimidation – Respondent-accused had remained in custody for only a few months – That apart, mechanical reliance on precedent without factual correlation is impermissible. (Paras 11, 12, 13 and 14)
(B) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 483 – Bail – Grant of – FIR registered for offences punishable under Sections 65(1), 74, 137(2) 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 5(l), 6, 9(g) and 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – In offences involving sexual assault against children, likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses constitutes a grave and legitimate concern – Safety of victim and need to preserve purity of trial process assume paramount importance – While bail is not to be refused mechanically, it must not be granted on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring material evidence – Where order granting bail is founded on incorrect appreciation of facts or suffers from material omissions or where it results in miscarriage of justice, this Court is empowered to interfere – In present case, grant of bail by High Court is vitiated by material misdirection and non-consideration of relevant factors rendering the same manifestly perverse – Impugned Judgment passed by High Court set aside and bail granted to Respondent-accused cancelled. (Paras 15, 16 and 17)
Facts of the case:
Present criminal appeal has been filed challenging final judgment and order dated 09.04.2025 passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9829 of 2025, whereby High Court granted bail to Respondent No. 2 – accused in connection with FIR registered for offences punishable under Sections 65(1), 74, 137(2) 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 5(l), 6, 9(g) and 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Findings of Court:
POCSO Act is a beneficial legislation enacted to protect children from sexual offences and that proceedings under said Act warrant prompt and sensitive handling. This Court has consistently emphasized 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 process of law is not rendered oppressive. Accordingly, Trial Court is directed to give priority to present case, conclude trial and pass appropriate orders on its own merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.
Result : Criminal appeal allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The case involves an appeal against the bail granted to Respondent No. 2, accused of heinous offences including repeated sexual assault of a minor victim, threatening her with a firearm, and recording the acts for blackmail purposes (!) (!) .
The minor victim was approximately 14 years old at the time of the incident, with her date of birth established through educational records and medical examination (!) (!) .
The prosecution's case is supported by the victim’s detailed statements, medico-legal reports indicating the gravity of the offences, and evidence of threats and intimidation by the accused (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The accused was arrested approximately a month after the FIR was registered, and his bail application was initially rejected by the trial court but later granted by the High Court without adequately considering the seriousness of the allegations and the evidence (!) (!) (!) .
The appeal contends that the High Court erred in granting bail, failing to properly evaluate the gravity of the offences, the impact on the victim, and the statutory provisions under the relevant laws, particularly the stringent provisions of the legislation protecting children from sexual offences (!) (!) (!) .
The appellant emphasizes that the offences are grave, involving coercion, intimidation, and repeated sexual acts, which warrant stringent measures including denial of bail to prevent tampering with evidence and witness intimidation (!) (!) .
The respondent’s defense included claims of innocence, alleged alibi, and assertions that the case was motivated by personal animosity, with arguments highlighting inconsistencies in the victim’s statements and the absence of medical corroboration of rape (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court observed that the offences are heinous and involve serious violations of laws meant to protect minors, and that the prima facie evidence establishes the commission of the offences (!) (!) .
The court found that the High Court's decision to grant bail was based on an incomplete assessment of the evidence and failed to consider the gravity of the offences, the risk of witness intimidation, and the need to uphold the integrity of the trial process (!) (!) .
Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the bail order, canceled the bail granted to Respondent No. 2, and directed him to surrender within two weeks, emphasizing the importance of ensuring a fair trial while safeguarding the victim’s interests (!) (!) (!) .
The Court also directed the trial court to prioritize the case for expeditious disposal, recognizing the sensitive nature of proceedings under the legislation protecting children from sexual offences (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice regarding this case.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. bail granted under serious offenses. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments against the bail grant. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. analysis of the bail decision. (Para 8 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. legal reasoning for cancelling bail. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. final orders and directions. (Para 17 , 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT :
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
Leave granted.
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 Allahabad1[Hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”] 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 6 5 (1), 74, 137(2) 352 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20232[For short, “ BNSS ”] and Sections 5 (l), 6, 9(g) and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 20123[For short, “POCSO Act”].
3. The case of the appellant as projected in this appeal is as follows:
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.
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.
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, 19734[For short, “Cr.P.C”]). 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 (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.
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.
3.5. Upon completion of investigation, the investigating officer filed chargesheet on 19.02.2025 for offences punishable under Sections 6 5 (1), 74, 137(2) and 352 of the BNSS and 5(l), 6, 9(g) and 10 of the POCSO Act. Thereafter,
(1) Bail – Mere filing of charge-sheet does not, by itself, preclude consideration of application for bail.(2) Bail granted without due consideration of material factors warrants interference – In of....
Bail cannot be granted in sexual assault cases against minors without significant scrutiny of charges and evidence; serious errors by the High Court necessitated cancellation.
(1) Cancellation of bail – Concept of setting aside an unjustified, illegal or perverse order is totally different from concept of cancelling bail on the ground that accused has misconducted himself ....
The court has the authority to cancel bail if the order suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice, and if the accused misuses their liberty, interferes with the investigati....
The importance of complying with mandatory provisions of the law, recording reasons for granting or denying bail, and applying judicial mind in bail matters.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of bail must be based on relevant considerations, and the heinous nature of the offence, statutory presumptions under the POCSO Act,....
The court emphasized that bail should be denied in serious offences like rape, highlighting the severity of the charge, nature of evidence, and potential for witness tampering as critical considerati....
Kidnapped and Rape - Bail granted - Under Section 439(2) of the new Code, a High Court may commit a person released on bail under Chapter XXXIII by any Court including Court of Session to custody, if....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
