Holding

The High Court’s grant of bail to the accused was perverse and untenable as it failed to consider the heinous nature of the offences, the victim’s vulnerability and the risk of tampering, and therefore must be set aside.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined a criminal appeal challenging the Allahabad High Court's order granting bail to Respondent No.2, who was accused of gang‑rape, sexual assault and recording the act against a minor under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the POCSO Act. The FIR was lodged on 2 December 2024 and a chargesheet filed on 19 February 2025, with the victim’s statements under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and a medico‑legal report establishing a prima facie case. The High Court granted bail despite these materials, prompting the State to argue that the court ignored the heinous nature of the offence, the victim’s vulnerability and the risk of intimidation. The Supreme Court held that bail in such serious POCSO offences must consider the gravity of the crime, the likelihood of tampering with evidence and statutory rigour, and found the High Court’s order perverse. Consequently, the bail order was set aside, the bail cancelled and the accused directed to surrender, with directions for a speedy trial. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court erred in granting bail to an accused of gang‑rape and sexual assault of a minor without proper consideration of the offence’s heinous nature and statutory provisions.
Whether the filing of a chargesheet precludes consideration of a bail application in POCSO offences.
Whether the risk of victim intimidation, evidence tampering and the statutory rigour of the BNS and POCSO Acts require denial of bail.
Whether the High Court’s reliance on irrelevant considerations amounts to material misdirection warranting cancellation of bail.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023s. 180, s. 183
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023s. 137(2), s. 352, s. 65(1), s. 74
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 161, s. 164
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012s. 10, s. 5(l), s. 6, s. 9(g)

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether 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-gang-rape and sexual assault threatening with deadly weapon and from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – ss.5(l), 6, 9(g) and 10 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – ss.65(1), 74, 137(2) and 352 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Cancellation of bail in POCSO offence – Commission of offence of gang-raping a minor and sexual

Subjects

BailHeinous nature of acts committed against minorGang-rapeSexual assaultDeadly weaponRecording of the incident on mobile phoneCancellation of bail in POCSO offenceCounselling reportChild Welfare CommitteeMedico-legal evidenceRepeated penetrative sexual assault

Judgment

[2026] 1 S.C.R. 484 : 2026 INSC 44

X
v.
The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another
(Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 2026)
09 January 2026
[B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether 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-gang-rape and sexual assault threatening with deadly
weapon and recording of the incident.

Headnotes†
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – ss.5(l),
6, 9(g) and 10 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – ss.65(1),
74, 137(2) and 352 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 –
Cancellation of bail in POCSO offence – Commission of offence
of gang-raping a minor and sexual assault threatening her
with deadly weapon and recording of the incident on a mobile
phone, by respondent no. 2 and his friends – Registration of
FIR – After investigation, chargesheet filed against respondent
no. 2 u/ss.65(1), 74, 137(2) and 352 BNS and ss. 5(l), 6, 9(g)
and 10 POCSO Act and against A2 to A4, u/ss.74 and 352 BNS
and ss.9(g) and 10 POCSO Act – Respondent no.2 sought bail,
which was denied by the trial court, however allowed by the
High Court – Justification:
Held: Impugned judgment suffers from serious infirmities –
Submission regarding consensual relationship between the parties
wholly untenable in law – Statements of the victim recorded u/s.183
BNSS read with the Medico-legal examination report prima facie
establish the commission of the alleged offences – Mere filing
of chargesheet does not, by itself, preclude consideration of an
application for bail – However, while assessing such an application,
the Court duty-bound to have due regard to the nature and gravity
of the offence and the material collected during investigation –
Offences alleged are heinous and grave involving repeated

* Author
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 485

X v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another

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, while granting bail to respondent no. 2
failed to take into account the nature and gravity of the offences,
vulnerability of the victim, likelihood of witness intimidation and
the statutory rigour under the provisions of the POCSO Act –
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 – Also, victim resides in the same locality
as respondent no. 2 and counselling report of the Child Welfare
Committee records that the victim is under fear and psychological
distress – Post-release presence of respondent no. 2 gives rise
to a real and imminent apprehension of intimidation and further
trauma to the victim – In offences involving sexual assault against
children, the likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing
witnesses constitutes a grave and legitimate concern – Safety of
the victim and the need to preserve the purity of the 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 – Grant of bail by the High Court is
vitiated by material misdirection and non-consideration of relevant
factors rendering the same manifestly perverse – Impugned
judgment cannot be sustained in law and is set aside – Bail granted
to respondent no. 2 cancelled. [Paras 11-19]

Case Law Cited
Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [2022] 4
SCR 1 : (2022) 8 SCC 559; State of U.P. v Sonu Kushwaha
[2023] 10 SCR 993 : Criminal Appeal No. 1633 of 2023 dated
05.07.2023; Ramji Lal Bairwa and Another v. State of Rajasthan
and Others, 2024 INSC 846 : [2024] 11 SCR 641; Mahipal v.
Rajesh Kumar and Another [2019] 14 SCR 529 : (2020) 2 SCC
118; Arjun Jalba Ichke v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal
No. 268 of 2025 dated 17.01.2025; Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar
@ Deepu @ Depak and Another [2023] 11 SCR 469 : (2023) 13
SCC 549; Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation
[2022] 10 SCR 351 : (2022) 10 SCC 51; Manish Sisodia v.
Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 : [2024] 8 SCR 1061;
Padmausundara Rao (Dead) and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu and
486 [2026] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Others [2002] 2 SCR 383 : (2002) 3 SCC 533; State of Bihar v.
Rajballav Prasad @ Rajballav Pd. Yadav @ Rajballabh Yadav
[2016] 9 SCR 652 : (2017) 2 SCC 178 – referred to.

List of Acts
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023; Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

List of Keywords
Bail; Heinous nature of acts committed against minor; Gang-rape;
Sexual assault; Deadly weapon; Recording of the incident on
mobile phone; Cancellation of bail in POCSO offence; Counselling
report; Child Welfare Committee; Medico-legal evidence; Repeated
penetrative sexual assault.

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
164 of 2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.04.2025 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in CRMBA No. 9829 of 2025

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Md. Ali, Ms. Shalu.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Vishwa Pal Singh, Ghanshyam Singh, Adesh Kr. Gill, Akas Gothwal,
Dr. Reji Kumarr., Anurag Pandey, Suraj Pal Singh Mina, Nagenra
Singh, Ms. Akansha, Naman Raj Singh, Sparsh Choudhary, Ms.
Srishti Mishra, Ms. Anjali Saxena, Dr. Amardeep Gaur.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

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
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 487

X v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another

Judicature at Allahabad1 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) and 352 of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 20232 and Sections 5(l), 6, 9(g) and
10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 20123.
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 BNS and Sections 9(g) and 10 of the POCSO Act against
five accused persons including Respondent No. 2.

1 Hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”
2 For short, “BNS”
3 For short, “POCSO Act”
488 [2026] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
20234 (corresponding to Section 161 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 19735). 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.
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 65(1), 74, 137(2) and 352 of the BNS 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.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that
the High Court erred in granting bail to Respondent No. 2 without

4 For short, “BNSS”
5 For short, “Cr.P.C”
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 489

X v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another

due regard to the seriousness and gravity of the charges framed
against him. It was contended that Respondent No. 2 is accused of
committing a heinous and grave offence of repeatedly gang-raping
a minor victim aged about 14 years by threatening her with a deadly
weapon (katta) and recording the acts on a mobile phone.
4.1. It was further submitted that Respondent No. 2 deliberately
suppressed a crucial and material fact before the High Court,
particularly the filing of the chargesheet prior to the consideration
of the bail application. Such suppression, it was urged, amounts
to an abuse of the process of law and constitutes an independent
ground for cancellation of bail.
4.2. The learned counsel contended that the statement of the
minor victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS before
the learned Magistrate discloses a consistent and detailed
account of repeated sexual assault, the use of a katta to
threaten the minor victim and the recording of the acts for the
purpose of blackmail. Further, the medico-legal examination
report prepared by the E.M.O., District Women Hospital,
Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh records the gravity of offence and
trauma suffered by the minor victim viz., gang-rape, penetrative
assault, physical violence and threats thereby fully corroborating
the victim’s version.
4.3. It was also pointed out by the learned counsel that although
the FIR was registered on 02.12.2024, Respondent No. 2 was
arrested only on 03.01.2025 owing to his influential social status
and during this intervening period, he remained at large in the
same village where the minor victim resides exposing her to
intimidation and trauma.
4.4. The learned counsel contended that the High Court failed to
consider the victim’s detailed statement under Section 183 of
the BNSS, the medico-legal evidence corroborating repeated
sexual assault, the counselling reports of the Child Welfare
Committee reflecting the fear and trauma suffered by the victim
and the documentary proof of her date of birth. Instead, undue
reliance was placed on irrelevant considerations such as the
alleged delay in lodging the FIR and speculative observations
regarding the victim’s age.
490 [2026] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

4.5. Further, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision
of this Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh
and another6, particularly paragraph 33, which holds that
bail may be cancelled even in the absence of supervening
circumstances, inter alia, where relevant material is ignored,
irrelevant considerations are taken into account, the influential
position of the accused vis-a-vis the victim is overlooked, or
where the order granting bail is whimsical, capricious, perverse
or unjustified given the seriousness of the charges.
4.6. Thus, the learned counsel submitted that the grant of bail to
Respondent No. 2 is perverse, unreasonable and contrary
to settled principles of law governing bail in serious offences
against minor victims and is accordingly liable to be set aside.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the
impugned judgment granting bail to Respondent No. 2 – accused is
legally unsustainable and warrants interference by this Court.
5.1. It was submitted that FIR No. 426/2024 was registered at Police
Station Kandhla, District Shamli based on the complaint lodged
by the uncle of the minor victim. The charges framed against
the accused were under Sections 65(1), 74, 137(2) and 352
of the BNS and Sections 5(l), 6, 9(g) and 10 of the POCSO
Act alleging commission of rape and sexual assault upon a
minor victim aged about 14 years. According to the learned
counsel, the allegations are grave, specific and directly attribute
culpability to the accused thereby attracting stringent provisions
of the POCSO Act.
5.2. The learned counsel further submitted that in her statement
recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS before the learned
Magistrate, the victim categorically stated that she had known
Respondent No. 2 for about six months and he had established
physical relations with her. On earlier occasions also, he had
established physical relations with her by threatening that
he would make her photographs public. She discontinued
communication with Respondent No. 2 when her family

6 (2022) 8 SCC 559
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 491

X v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another

members became aware of it. It was further alleged that on the
date of the incident, the accused committed rape by threatening
her with a firearm. These allegations, according to the State,
disclose a clear prima facie case of sexual assault under the
POCSO Act.
5.3. The learned counsel emphasized that the victim’s date of birth
was recorded as 18.07.2010 in her educational certificate. The
medical examination also assessed her age to be approximately
16-17 years. Thus, there is no dispute that the victim was a
minor on the date of the incident i.e. 01.12.2024.
5.4. Given the statutory presumption under the POCSO Act and the
undisputed minority of the victim, the learned counsel submitted
that consent, if any, is legally irrelevant.
5.5. It was argued by the learned counsel that the trial Court
rightly rejected the bail application of Respondent No. 2 after
considering the seriousness of the allegations, the vulnerability
of the victim, and the statutory mandate governing offences
under the POCSO Act. However, the High Court failed to accord
due weight to these material factors and erroneously granted
bail to Respondent No.2.
5.6. Reliance was placed on the judgments of this Court in State
of U.P. v. Sonu Kushwaha7 wherein it was observed that the
POCSO Act was enacted to provide stringent punishment for
offences involving child abuse and to safeguard children from
sexual exploitation and in Ramji Lal Bairwa and another v.
State of Rajasthan and others8 wherein it was reiterated that
offences under the POCSO Act cannot be treated as private
disputes and must be regarded as serious offences against
society at large.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2 –
accused submitted that this respondent is innocent and has been
falsely roped into the present case due to personal animosity and
pressure exerted by the family members of the minor victim, who

7 Criminal Appeal No. 1633 of 2023 dated 05.07.2023
8 2024 INSC 846
492 [2026] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

disapproved of her alleged association with the respondent. It was
argued that the present case is nothing but a malicious attempt to
criminalise a consensual acquaintance and to harass an innocent
young man.
6.1. It was contended that the FIR was lodged with unexplained
delay despite the police station being situated merely half an
hour away from the alleged place of occurrence. Importantly,
the initial allegations did not refer to rape; the accusation
escalated only later allegedly after legal consultation. This
delay and escalation seriously undermine the credibility of the
prosecution’s case. Further, there are glaring inconsistencies
between the FIR, the statement of the victim under Section
180 of the BNSS and the statement under Section 183 of
the BNSS. In her statement under Section 180 of the BNSS,
the minor victim refrained from specifying any act of sexual
assault or molestation by the respondent. However, in her later
statement before the Magistrate, she acknowledged knowing
the respondent for a considerable period and referred to her
family’s displeasure over her association with him. These
contradictions, according to the learned counsel, strike at the
root of the prosecution’s version.
6.2. The learned counsel submitted that there is no medical
corroboration of rape. The medico-legal examination conducted
on 08.12.2024 revealed no injuries on the body of the minor
victim. The absence of medical evidence further weakens the
prosecution’s case, especially given the seriousness of the
allegations.
6.3. It was further highlighted that during the investigation and
medical examination, the minor victim disclosed that she had
known Respondent No. 2 for the past two years, had been
in regular communication with him and had visited cafés with
him on multiple occasions. She also admitted that she stopped
communicating with Respondent No. 2 only after her family
became aware of their association. According to the learned
counsel, the victim later introduced entirely new and inconsistent
versions of alleged rape, filming of the incident and involvement
of additional persons, which render the prosecution’s case
unreliable.
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 493

X v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another

6.4. The learned counsel submitted that the dispute was triggered
solely after the family of the minor victim discovered her
alleged relationship with the respondent. The FIR was lodged
by the paternal uncle of the victim with mala fide intention,
without regard to the severe and irreversible impact that false
allegations of this nature could have on the respondent’s life,
reputation and future.
6.5. It was further contended that the respondent was not present
at the alleged place of occurrence on the date of the incident
as he was out of the city from 28.11.2024 to 02.12.2024. The
respondent’s father furnished material evidence supporting the
plea of alibi; however, the prosecution failed to properly verify
or investigate this crucial aspect.
6.6. The learned counsel also emphasized that the respondent
was only 18 years and 1 month old on the date of the alleged
incident, had no criminal antecedents and had already remained
in custody for a considerable period. Given his young age
and formative stage of life, any adverse order would cause
irreparable harm to his education, future prospects, and chances
of reformation.
6.7. It was submitted that Respondent No. 2 has fully cooperated with
the investigation and duly complied with all the bail conditions.
Further, there is no allegation of misuse of liberty.
6.8. The learned counsel relied on the decision in Mahipal v. Rajesh
Kumar and another9, wherein this Court held that interference
with an order granting bail is warranted only when the order is
perverse, unreasoned, or ignores material considerations. In
the present case, the High Court passed a well-reasoned order
after independently assessing the facts and material on record.
6.9. Reference was also made to Arjun Jalba Ichke v. State of
Maharashtra10 wherein bail was granted despite invocation
of stringent provisions. The respondent herein being similarly
situated, the learned counsel sought parity.

9 (2020) 2 SCC 118
10 Criminal Appeal No. 268 of 2025 dated 17.01.2025
494 [2026] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

6.10. Finally, the learned counsel submitted that the object of bail
is not punitive but to secure the presence of the accused
during trial. Therefore, the impugned judgment of the High
Court granting bail to Respondent No. 2 does not warrant any
interference by this Court.
7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for all the parties and
perused the documents placed before us.
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 BNS 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 BNS and Sections 9(g) and 10 of the POCSO Act.
The present case pertains to Respondent No.2 (A1) alone.
8.1. It further discloses that the date of birth of the victim was
ascertained from her educational records as 18.07.2010 and
the medical officer assessed her age to be between 16-17
years. Though the FIR came to be registered on 02.12.2024,
Respondent No. 2 was arrested only on 03.01.2025. His bail
application was rejected by the District and Sessions Judge,
Shamli upon consideration of the victim’s statement under
Section 183 of the BNSS. However, by the impugned judgement,
Respondent No. 2 came to be released on bail. Hence, the
present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant.
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:
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 495

X v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another

S. Acts Sections Nature of offence Maximum
No. punishment
prescribed

1 BNS 137(2) Kidnapping from 7 years
lawful guardianship

2 POCSO 9(g) Aggravated sexual 7 years
Act assault more than
once or repeatedly
3 POCSO 10
Act

4 BNS 65(1) Punishment for Imprisonment
rape on a woman for life which
under sixteen shall mean
years of age imprisonment
for the
remainder of
the convict’s
natural life

5 BNS 74 Assault or use of 5 years
criminal force to
woman with intent
to outrage her
modesty

6 BNS 352 Intentional insult 2 years
with intent to
provoke breach of
peace

7 POCSO 5(l) Aggravated Death or
Act penetrative sexual imprisonment
assault on the for life which
8 POCSO 6 child more than shall mean
Act once or repeatedly imprisonment
for the
remainder of
the convict’s
natural life
496 [2026] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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.
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.
10. Refuting the allegations levelled against Respondent No. 2,
particularly in relation to his alleged post-bail conduct, the learned
counsel submitted that Respondent No. 2 has scrupulously complied
with the bail conditions imposed by the High Court and has been
fully cooperating with the proceedings.
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.
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 497

X v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another

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.
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 another11, 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:
“13. It is also required to be borne in mind that when a
prayer is made for the cancellation of grant of bail, cogent
and overwhelming circumstances must be present and
bail once granted cannot be cancelled in a mechanical
manner without considering whether any supervening
circumstances have rendered it in conducing to allow fair
trial. This proposition draws support from the judgment of
this Court in Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana [Dolat Ram v.
State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 : 1995 SCC (Cri)
237], Kashmira Singh v. Duman Singh [Kashmira Singh v.
Duman Singh, (1996) 4 SCC 693 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 844]
and X v. State of Telangana [X v. State of Telangana,
(2018) 16 SCC 511 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 902] .
....

11 (2023) 13 SCC 549
498 [2026] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

16. No doubt each case would have unique facts peculiar
to its own and the same would hold key for adjudication of
bail matters including cancellation thereof. There may be
circumstances where interference to or attempt to interfere
with the course of administration of justice or evasion or
attempt to evade to due course of justice are abuse of
concession granted to the accused in any manner.
17. The offence alleged in the instant case is heinous and
would be an onslaught on the dignity of the womanhood and
the age old principle of यत्र नाार्ययस्तुु पूूज्यन्तेे रमन्तेे तत्र देेवताा: (where
women are respected Gods live there) would recede to the
background and the guilty not being punished by process
of law or accused persons are allowed to move around
freely in the society or in spite of there being prima facie
material being present they are allowed to move around
freely in the society before guilt is proved and are likely to
indulge in either threatening the prosecution witnesses or
inducing them in any manner to jettison the criminal justice
system, then the superior court will have to necessarily
step in to undo the damage occasioned due to erroneous
orders being passed by the courts below.
….
21. In this background, the contention or plea of delay
being fatal to the prosecution when examined, it would,
prima facie, indicate that in the complaint/FIR which has
been registered on 25-3-2022 relevant to the incident
dated 24-2-2021 the reason has been assigned, namely,
constant threat posed by the accused persons as stated
in the complaint itself. It is in this background it will have
to be seen as to whether in the societal circumstances
the minor girl was placed, her tender age, then prevailing
circumstances and the purported video depicting her nudity
and the constant threat being posed to victim of video of
rape which had been recorded being made viral in the
event of prosecutrix informing anyone of the incident are
factors which cannot be brushed aside which resulted in
delay in filing the complaint. In other words, delay by itself
would not be fatal for all times to come and the criminality
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 499

X v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another

attached to the incident would not evaporate into thin air
or get extinguished by virtue of such delay. It all depends
upon facts that may unfold in given circumstances and
same would vary from case to case. On the other hand,
if the prosecution attempts to improvise its case stage by
stage and step by step during the interregnum period,
in such circumstances the accused would be justified in
contending that delay was fatal to stave off the proceedings
initiated against such accused. Thus, it depends on
facts that would unfold in a given case. In the aforesaid
background the fact of delay in the instant case prima facie
cannot be held against the prosecution or in other words
on the ground of delay in lodging FIR the genuineness
of the complaint cannot be viewed with coloured glasses
nor it can be held that by itself would be sufficient ground
to enlarge the accused on bail.”
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 Investigation12 and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate
of Enforcement13. 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 others14.
15. It is also important to point out that the victim resides in the same
locality as Respondent No. 2. The counselling report of the Child
Welfare Committee records that the victim is under fear and
psychological distress. The post-release presence of Respondent
No. 2 gives rise to a real and imminent apprehension of intimidation

12 (2022) 10 SCC 51
13 2024 INSC 595
14 (2002) 3 SCC 533
500 [2026] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

and further trauma to the victim. In offences involving sexual assault
against children, the likelihood of tampering with evidence or
influencing witnesses constitutes a grave and legitimate concern.
The safety of the victim and the need to preserve the purity of the
trial process assume paramount importance. In State of Bihar v.
Rajballav Prasad @ Rajballav Pd. Yadav @ Rajballabh Yadav15,
this Court underscored that such factors must weigh decisively while
considering bail in serious sexual offences. The following paragraphs
are apposite:
“23. Keeping in view all the aforesaid considerations in
mind, we are of the opinion that it was not a fit case for
grant of bail to the respondent at this stage and grave error
is committed by the High Court in this behalf. We would
like to reproduce following discussion from the judgment in
Kanwar Singh Meena v. State of Rajasthan [Kanwar Singh
Meena v. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 12 SCC 180 : (2013)
4 SCC (Cri) 614] : (SCC pp. 186 & 189, paras 10 & 18)
“10. … While cancelling bail under Section
439(2) of the Code, the primary considerations
which weigh with the court are whether the
accused is likely to tamper with the evidence
or interfere or attempt to interfere with the due
course of justice or evade the due course of
justice. But, that is not all. The High Court or
the Sessions Court can cancel bail even in
cases where the order granting bail suffers from
serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of
justice. If the court granting bail ignores relevant
materials indicating prima facie involvement of
the accused or takes into account irrelevant
material, which has no relevance to the question
of grant of bail to the accused, the High Court
or the Sessions Court would be justified in
cancelling the bail. Such orders are against the
well-recognised principles underlying the power
to grant bail. Such orders are legally infirm and

15 (2017) 2 SCC 178
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 501

X v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another

vulnerable leading to miscarriage of justice and
absence of supervening circumstances such as
the propensity of the accused to tamper with
the evidence, to flee from justice, etc. would
not deter the court from cancelling the bail.
The High Court or the Sessions Court is bound
to cancel such bail orders particularly when
they are passed releasing accused involved in
heinous crimes because they ultimately result
in weakening the prosecution case and have
adverse impact on the society. Needless to say
that though the powers of this Court are much
wider, this Court is equally guided by the above
principles in the matter of grant or cancellation
of bail.
***
18. Taking an overall view of the matter, we are
of the opinion that in the interest of justice, the
impugned order granting bail to the accused
deserves to be quashed and a direction needs
to be given to the police to take the accused
in custody.”
24. As indicated by us in the beginning, prime consideration
before us is to protect the fair trial and ensure that
justice is done. This may happen only if the witnesses
are able to depose without fear, freely and truthfully and
this Court is convinced that in the present case, that
can be ensured only if the respondent is not enlarged
on bail. This importance of fair trial was emphasised in
Panchanan Mishra v. Digambar Mishra [(2005) 3 SCC
143 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 660] while setting aside the order
of the High Court granting bail in the following terms :
(SCC pp. 147-48, para 13)
“13. We have given our careful consideration
to the rival submissions made by the counsel
appearing on either side. The object underlying
the cancellation of bail is to protect the fair
trial and secure justice being done to the
502 [2026] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

society by preventing the accused who is set
at liberty by the bail order from tampering
with the evidence in the heinous crime and if
there is delay in such a case the underlying
object of cancellation of bail practically loses
all its purpose and significance to the greatest
prejudice and the interest of the prosecution. It
hardly requires to be stated that once a person
is released on bail in serious criminal cases
where the punishment is quite stringent and
deterrent, the accused in order to get away
from the clutches of the same indulge in various
activities like tampering with the prosecution
witnesses, threatening the family members of
the deceased victim and also create problems
of law and order situation.”
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 non-consideration of relevant
factors rendering the same manifestly perverse.
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.
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
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 503

X v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another

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.
19. With the aforesaid directions, this criminal appeal is allowed.
20. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Result of the case: Appeal allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain