Summary
The Supreme Court cancelled bail granted by the Allahabad High Court to an accused charged with repeated armed sexual assault of a minor girl under the BNS and POCSO Act, holding that the High Court ignored the gravity of the offences, the statutory rigour of the POCSO Act, the filed chargesheet, the victim's statements and the risk of intimidation, and relied on inapposite precedents.
Issues
- Whether the High Court's grant of bail to the accused in a POCSO and BNS case of alleged repeated sexual assault of a minor under armed threat was vitiated by non-consideration of relevant material.
- Whether bail could be cancelled on the ground that the bail order was itself infirm, and in view of the risk of intimidation of the victim.
Provisions considered
- Sections 5(l), 6, 9(g) and 10, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012The chargesheet invoked aggravated penetrative and aggravated sexual assault committed repeatedly; the Court held that the High Court failed to account for the gravity of these offences and the statutory rigour of the Act when granting bail. (¶¶ 8, 9, 12, 13)
- Sections 65(1), 74, 137(2) and 352, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023These charges, including rape of a woman under sixteen, were part of the chargesheet against the accused and were weighed in assessing the seriousness of the allegations. (¶¶ 8, 9, 12)
- Section 183, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023The victim's statement before the Magistrate, read with the medico-legal report, was held prima facie to establish the alleged offences and to have been overlooked by the High Court. (¶¶ 11, 13)
Held
- The plea of a consensual relationship is untenable in law where the victim is a minor, particularly where the allegations involve coercion, intimidation and several perpetrators; the victim's statement before the Magistrate and the medico-legal report prima facie established the offences. (¶ 11)
- Filing of a chargesheet does not by itself bar bail, but the court must weigh the nature and gravity of the offence and the material collected; repeated penetrative sexual assault on a minor under armed intimidation, recorded for blackmail, is heinous. (¶ 12)
- The High Court's failure to consider the gravity of the offences, the statutory rigour of the POCSO Act, the fact that a chargesheet had been filed and the victim's statements made its exercise of discretion manifestly erroneous. (¶ 13)
- Reliance on Satender Kumar Antil and Manish Sisodia was misplaced, the latter turning on prolonged incarceration while the accused here had been in custody only a few months; precedents cannot be applied mechanically without factual correlation. (¶ 14)
- Where the victim lives in the same locality, the Child Welfare Committee records her fear and distress, and there is a real apprehension of intimidation, the safety of the child victim and the integrity of the trial weigh decisively against bail in serious sexual offences. (¶ 15)
- A bail order founded on incorrect appreciation of facts, material omissions or irrelevant considerations, resulting in miscarriage of justice, may be interfered with; the present order was vitiated by misdirection and was perverse. (¶ 16)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court's bail order dated 09.04.2025 set aside and bail cancelled; accused to surrender before the jurisdictional court within two weeks, failing which the trial court to secure his custody; trial court directed to give priority to the case and conclude the trial expeditiously.