POCSO Is a Beneficial Law, Bail Must Be Handled Sensitively: Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Minor Gang Rape Case

The Supreme Court of India on January 9, 2026 held that the POCSO Act is a beneficial legislation enacted to protect children from sexual offences and that proceedings under the Act require prompt and sensitive handling. Court allowed an appeal against the bail granted to an accused in a case involving allegations of gang rape and repeated aggravated sexual assault of a minor girl.

A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and R Mahadevan set aside the April 9, 2025 judgment of the Allahabad High Court, observing that the high court failed to consider the nature and gravity of the offences as well as the statutory rigour under the POCSO Act. The bench directed the accused, Arjun, to surrender within two weeks.

“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 bench said.

Court emphasised that while bail should not be refused mechanically, it cannot be granted on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring material evidence. It noted that where a bail order is based on an incorrect appreciation of facts, suffers from material omissions, or results in a miscarriage of justice, the Supreme 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,'' the bench said.

Rejecting the accused’s claim of a consensual relationship, court held the submission to be wholly untenable in law, particularly when the allegations involved coercion, intimidation and multiple perpetrators. It noted that the victim’s statements recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, read with the medico-legal examination report, prima facie established the commission of the alleged offences.

While examining the victim’s appeal, court reiterated that it has consistently stressed the need for expeditious disposal of POCSO cases. At the same time, it said that prosecutions must undergo careful judicial scrutiny to ensure the legal process does not become oppressive.

The bench directed the trial court to give priority to the case, conclude the trial and pass appropriate orders on its own merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

Court further clarified that the mere filing of a chargesheet does not, by itself, bar consideration of a bail application. However, while deciding such pleas, courts are duty-bound to assess 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,'' the bench said.

It held that the high court’s failure to consider that the chargesheet had already been filed, along with the prima facie material emerging from the victim’s statements, rendered the exercise of discretion manifestly erroneous. The bench also noted that the high court did not apply settled principles governing bail, including the gravity of the offence, the vulnerability of the victim and the likelihood of witness intimidation, especially since both the accused and the victim belonged to the same village.

Court also took note of the counselling report of the Child Welfare Committee, which recorded that the victim was under fear and psychological distress. It observed that the accused’s presence after release on bail created 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. The safety of the victim and the need to preserve the purity of the trial process assume paramount importance,'' the bench said.

As per the facts of the case, the accused Arjun was known to the minor victim for about six months prior to the incident. According to the victim’s statement, he repeatedly established physical relations with her by threatening her and pointing a locally made firearm (katta) at her. She further stated that his friends namely Goldi, Amit, Rupak and Vedansh, also abused and molested her and attempted to establish physical relations with her.

An FIR was registered on December 2, 2024 in Shamli 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. Arjun was arrested on January 3, 2025.

It was contended that after being released on bail, the accused continuously threatened and intimidated the minor victim. It was stated that both lived in the same village and that the accused stalked the victim when she went to school or outside, intimidated her by glaring at her and showing a katta, and played songs glorifying violence to instil fear. Due to this conduct, the victim became afraid and stopped attending school.

Case Title: X Vs The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another 

Order Date: January 9, 2026

Bench: Justices B V Nagarathna and R Mahadevan