Court directs fresh bail hearing with mandatory notice and opportunity to victim, emphasizing adherence to POCSO Act provisions and principles of natural justice
In a landmark judgment dated September 29, 2026, the Allahabad High Court, presided over by Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh, J., has set aside an anticipatory bail order granted to accused in a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) case, citing fundamental procedural irregularities and violation of statutory mandates. The Court emphasized that granting anticipatory bail without issuing notice or affording an opportunity of hearing to the victim or informant is a clear breach of Section 40 of the POCSO Act, relevant rules under the POCSO Rules, 2020, and the principles of natural justice.
The case arose from a First Information Report lodged on February 6, 2023, alleging sexual assault on a minor by the accused. The trial court had granted anticipatory bail on January 17, 2026, without issuing any notice or hearing the victim or her guardian. The informant challenged this bail order through a cancellation application before the High Court, contending that the denial of the statutory right to be heard rendered the bail order illegal.
The High Court carefully examined the provisions of the POCSO Act, 2012, and the POCSO Rules, 2020, which impose a mandatory obligation on the Special Courts and police to keep the victim and their guardian informed about all developments, including bail proceedings. The Court noted that Section 40 of the POCSO Act specifically grants the victim's family or guardian the right to legal assistance and mandates the provision of legal aid if they cannot afford counsel.
Quoting the Supreme Court's authoritative judgment in Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu (2022), the Court reiterated the expansive participatory rights of victims in criminal proceedings, including bail hearings. It held that the failure to provide notice and hearing to the victim in bail matters constitutes a jurisdictional error and procedural illegality, making such orders void ab initio, even if no misuse of bail liberty is proven.
The Court further rejected the contention that bail orders can only be cancelled based on subsequent misconduct by the accused, clarifying that orders suffering from non-application of mind or breach of mandatory statutory requirements can be set aside on that ground alone. The judgment also stressed that victim participation from investigation to trial and appeal is crucial to prevent miscarriages of justice.
In light of these findings, the High Court cancelled the anticipatory bail order and remanded the matter back to the trial court with strict directions to restore the bail application, issue proper notice to the victim/informant, and provide a fair and effective hearing before deciding the bail afresh. The accused were granted interim protection from coercive action for six weeks to facilitate this process.
The Court also mandated that this order be circulated to all Special Judges (POCSO Act) courts in Uttar Pradesh to ensure compliance and safeguard victims' rights in future proceedings.
This judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding the protective framework of the POCSO Act and ensuring that victims of sexual offences against children are accorded their rightful place in the criminal justice process.
Bottom Line:
POCSO Act - Anticipatory bail granted without issuing notice or affording hearing to victim/informant is violative of Section 40 of POCSO Act, Rule 4(13), 4(14), 4(15) of POCSO Rules, 2020 and principles of natural justice - Such order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside even without proof of post-bail misuse of liberty.
Statutory provision(s):
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Section 40, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2020 Rules 4(13), 4(14), 4(15), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 74, 115(2), 351(1), 352
Veer Singh v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2992413
