POCSO Offences Must Be Viewed As Crimes Against Society: Calcutta HC Cancels Bail

The Calcutta High Court recently cancelled the bail granted to an accused in a case involving allegations of penetrative sexual assault on a minor, holding that the trial court had granted bail without properly considering the gravity of the allegations and other well-established parameters governing the grant of bail in serious offences.

The Court observed that the mere filing of a charge sheet cannot be treated as a decisive factor for granting bail when the record contains serious incriminating materials and allegations under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

Justice Bivas Pattanayak, allowing an application filed by the de facto complainant seeking cancellation of bail, held that the order of the Additional Sessions Judge granting bail suffered from non-application of mind and failed to consider the seriousness of the allegations and the materials collected during investigation.

"Discretionary jurisdiction of the court should be exercised carefully and cautiously thereby balancing the rights of the accused and the interests of the society. The learned trial court failed to consider the seriousness of the offence under the POCSO Act. Needless to say, that commission of offence against the children should be viewed as heinous and serious offence and should not be taken lightly as offence of private nature and in fact such offences are bound to be taken as an offence against the society", it was noted.

The Court set aside the bail order dated 20.07.2024 and directed the accused to surrender before the trial court within ten days from the date of the High Court’s order, failing which the trial court was directed to take coercive steps to commit him to custody.

The case arose from a written complaint lodged on 29.05.2024 by the mother of a 14-year-old girl before the Inspector-in-Charge of Egra Police Station in West Bengal alleging that the accused had sexually exploited her minor daughter.

On the basis of the complaint, an FIR was registered as Egra Police Station Case No. 340 of 2024 under Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

According to the prosecution, the accused had been tutoring the minor girl in English and had developed a relationship of trust with the victim.

It was alleged that he subjected the minor to penetrative sexual assault and also took obscene photographs of her, which were later used to blackmail and coerce her into repeated sexual acts.

The victim eventually disclosed the incident to her grandmother, after which the complaint was lodged.

During the course of investigation, the victim’s statement was recorded before a Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In her statement, the victim allegedly described the acts of sexual assault committed by the accused and stated that she had been repeatedly threatened and blackmailed using objectionable photographs taken by him.

The statement further revealed that the trauma caused by the incident had severely affected the victim’s mental health and that she had even attempted suicide, following which she was admitted to a hospital.

The accused initially approached the trial court seeking anticipatory bail, which was rejected on 21.06.2024 considering the seriousness of the allegations.

Subsequently, after surrendering before the trial court on 26.06.2024, the accused sought regular bail. His bail application was again rejected on 10.07.2024 after the court examined the materials in the case diary, including the victim’s statement and the medical evidence suggesting sexual intercourse between the accused and the victim.

However, after the police submitted the charge sheet on 16.07.2024, the trial court allowed the accused’s bail application on 20.07.2024 primarily on the ground that the investigation had been completed.

Aggrieved by the grant of bail, the victim’s mother approached the High Court seeking cancellation of the bail order.

Before the High Court, the petitioner contended that the trial court had granted bail in a mechanical manner without considering the seriousness of the offence, the vulnerability of the minor victim and the possibility of intimidation of witnesses.

It was also argued that the accused had threatened the victim after his release and that a general diary entry had been lodged before the police regarding the alleged threat.

The accused, on the other hand, opposed the plea for cancellation of bail and argued that cancellation of bail requires exceptional circumstances such as misuse of liberty or tampering with evidence.

It was submitted that the allegations of intimidation were not substantiated and that bail once granted should not be cancelled lightly as it interferes with the personal liberty of the accused.

After considering the submissions of the parties and examining the materials on record, the High Court held that the impugned bail order suffered from serious legal infirmities.

The Court noted that the trial court had earlier rejected the bail application of the accused after considering the materials in the case diary, yet granted bail just ten days later without any change in circumstances except the filing of the charge sheet.

It was observed that courts must exercise their discretion to grant bail in a judicious manner and must record reasons showing that relevant factors have been considered. These factors include the prima facie case against the accused, the nature and gravity of the offence, the severity of punishment upon conviction, the likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and the overall impact of the offence on society.

The Court found that the trial court had failed to examine these parameters and had granted bail solely on the ground that the charge sheet had been filed; Such an approach, the High Court held, amounted to granting bail as a matter of routine without proper judicial application of mind.

The High Court further emphasised that offences under the POCSO Act are grave crimes against children and must be treated with seriousness.

Such offences cannot be viewed merely as private disputes but must be recognised as offences against society.

Holding that the bail order was passed on irrelevant considerations and without evaluating the gravity of the offence, the High Court concluded that the order could not be sustained in law.

The Court therefore cancelled the bail granted to the accused and directed him to surrender before the trial court within ten days.

Case Title: XXXX v. State of West Bengal & Anr.

Bench: Justice Bivas Pattanayak

Date of Judgment: 02.03.2026