Bail – Cancellation of bail – Scope and principles
Bail can be cancelled not only on the basis of supervening circumstances, but also where the order granting bail is perverse, ignores relevant material, considers irrelevant factors, or results in miscarriage of justice, particularly in heinous offences.
(Paras 13, 16, 17)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Sections 5(l), 6, 9(g), 10
Sexual offences against minors – Gravity – Bail
In offences involving aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a minor, accompanied by intimidation, repeated abuse and recording of sexual acts, courts must exercise heightened caution while granting bail, having due regard to the statutory rigour of the POCSO Act and the vulnerability of the victim.
(Paras 11–15)
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 65(1), 74, 137(2), 352
Heinous offences – Nature and gravity
Allegations of rape of a minor under armed intimidation, kidnapping, repeated sexual assault and criminal intimidation constitute heinous and grave offences, carrying severe punishment including life imprisonment, thereby warranting strict scrutiny at the stage of bail.
(Paras 9, 11, 12)
Bail jurisprudence – Relevant considerations
While considering bail, the court must examine the nature and gravity of the offence, prima facie material, severity of punishment, likelihood of witness intimidation, and impact on fair trial. Failure to consider these factors vitiates the order granting bail.
(Paras 12–16)
Delay in FIR – Sexual offences against minors
Delay in lodging FIR in cases involving sexual offences against minors cannot by itself be treated as fatal, particularly where the delay is attributable to fear, threats, trauma or social circumstances of the victim.
(Para 13, relying on Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu)
Consent – Minor victim
Where the victim is a minor, any alleged consent is legally irrelevant, and submissions based on consensual relationship are untenable in law.
(Paras 11, 12)
Witness intimidation – Post-bail conduct
In sexual offences against children, the likelihood of intimidation, psychological pressure or trauma to the victim after release of the accused is a decisive factor warranting cancellation of bail to protect the purity of the trial process.
(Paras 15–17)
ANALYSIS
1. Nature of challenge
The appeal challenged the High Court’s order granting bail to Respondent No.2 accused of gang rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a minor, punishable under the BNSS and the POCSO Act.
(Paras 1–3, 8)
2. Prosecution material
The prosecution relied upon:
-
the victim’s statement under Section 183 BNSS (equivalent to Section 164 Cr.P.C.),
-
medical evidence corroborating sexual assault,
-
documentary proof of minority (date of birth: 18.07.2010), and
-
chargesheet filed prior to grant of bail.
(Paras 3.3, 8, 9.1)
3. Error in High Court’s approach
The Supreme Court found that the High Court:
-
failed to appreciate the heinous nature and gravity of offences,
-
overlooked statutory rigour of the POCSO Act,
-
ignored prima facie material, and
-
placed reliance on irrelevant considerations such as delay in FIR and speculative observations regarding age.
(Paras 13–14, 16)
4. Bail cancellation without supervening circumstances
Relying on Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court reiterated that bail can be cancelled even without supervening circumstances where the order granting bail is perverse or suffers from serious infirmities.
(Paras 4.5, 13)
5. Protection of fair trial
The Court emphasised that the primary object of cancellation of bail is to protect a fair trial and prevent intimidation of witnesses, especially in cases involving minor victims residing in proximity to the accused.
(Paras 15–17)
6. Misplaced reliance on precedents
The High Court’s reliance on Satender Kumar Antil and Manish Sisodia was held to be misplaced, as those decisions turned on entirely different factual matrices and could not be mechanically applied.
(Para 14)
7. Final directions
The impugned order was set aside, bail cancelled, and the accused directed to surrender within two weeks, with liberty to the trial court to secure custody. The trial court was also directed to expeditiously conclude the trial.
(Paras 17–18)
RATIO DECIDENDI
-
An order granting bail in a serious POCSO offence is liable to be set aside where the court ignores the gravity of the offence, statutory rigour, and prima facie material, even in the absence of supervening circumstances.
-
In offences involving sexual assault on minors, alleged consent is legally irrelevant and cannot form the basis for grant of bail.
-
Delay in lodging FIR in sexual offences against minors does not, by itself, discredit the prosecution, particularly where fear, trauma or intimidation explains such delay.
-
Protection of the victim and preservation of a fair trial are paramount considerations; likelihood of intimidation or trauma to a minor victim justifies cancellation of bail.
-
Mechanical or context-free reliance on precedents while granting bail constitutes a serious infirmity warranting interference by the Supreme Court.
