POCSO Act | AP High Court Criticizes Trial Court For Making Observations On Mental Condition Of Autistic Victim, Doubting Her Testimony
The Andhra Pradesh High Court cancelled the bail granted to a school principal accused of sexual misconduct involving a minor autistic girl, holding that successive bail applications in serious offences cannot be entertained in a “routine or mechanical manner” without any substantial change in circumstances.In doing so the court said that the trial court failed to assign reasons...
The Andhra Pradesh High Court cancelled the bail granted to a school principal accused of sexual misconduct involving a minor autistic girl, holding that successive bail applications in serious offences cannot be entertained in a “routine or mechanical manner” without any substantial change in circumstances.
In doing so the court said that the trial court failed to assign reasons for entertaining the accused's successive bail pleas with a short span of previous dismissals, and should not have doubted the victim's testimony and should have acted with more care.
Holding that the order granting bail suffered from “serious infirmities” and overlooked the vulnerability of the autistic minor victim and apprehension of intimidation, Dr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa observed:
“In the present case, the impugned order suffers from serious infirmities. The learned Special Judge failed to assign cogent reasons for entertaining a successive bail application within a short span after dismissal of the earlier application, and did not adequately consider the gravity of the allegations, the vulnerability and mental condition of the victim, the possibility of intimidation, and the special nature of the offences under the POCSO Act".
The court said that it is conscious of the distinction between rejection of bail and cancellation of bail, it is equally well settled that where an order granting bail is shown to be perverse, arbitrary, illegal, or passed in contravention of settled legal principles, this Court would be justified in exercising jurisdiction.
The court said that ordinarily it would be slow in interfering with bail orders, however, where such order is founded on irrelevant considerations or suffers from manifest perversity, it becomes amenable to judicial interference.
"The learned Special Judge appears to have made observations about the mental condition of the victim which create doubt about her version even at the bail stage. Such an approach is improper, especially when the victim is a child suffering from Autism. The POCSO Act is a special legislation enacted with the avowed object of protecting children from sexual offences and ensuring a child-sensitive judicial process. While dealing with victims with special needs, the Courts are expected to adopt greater sensitivity and care. In the present case, the victim is admittedly suffering from Autism. Her vulnerability and dependency are relevant considerations which ought to have weighed with the learned Special Judge while evaluating the bail application" it said.
The bench took note of the contention that the victim herself appeared before the trial Court and narrated the acts committed by the Accused, which assumes significance. The bench said that it was not expressing any final opinion on merits, however "such circumstance could not have been lightly brushed aside while considering bail in a serious offence under the POCSO Act".
Relying primarily on Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, (2004) 7 SCC 528 and Puran v. Rambilas & Anr., (2001) 6 SCC 338 the Court reiterated that successive bail applications can be entertained only upon substantial change in circumstances and that bail can be cancelled where the order granting bail ignores material considerations or is otherwise perverse.
The case arose from allegations made by the maternal grandmother of a 16-year-old autistic girl against the principal of the school where the victim was studying. According to the prosecution, the victim disclosed during medical treatment that the accused had behaved indecently with her by touching her waist, cheeks and chest, and had threatened her not to reveal the incident.
The accused was arrested on 12.03.2026 and his first bail application was dismissed on 18.03.2026. However, within a week thereafter, he filed a second bail application, which was allowed by the Special Judge on 08.04.2026.
Challenging the grant of bail, the petitioner contended that there was absolutely no change in circumstances warranting reconsideration of bail. It was further argued that the trial court ignored the statement of the victim and wrongly treated her autism as a ground to doubt her version. The petitioner also alleged that relatives of the accused attempted to threaten and influence the family to withdraw the case, resulting in registration of another criminal case.
Opposing the plea, counsel for the accused argued that he had been working in the institution for 46 years without antecedents and had not attempted to tamper with evidence after his release on bail. It was also argued that the allegations regarding intimidation were belated.
Holding that the order granting bail suffered from “serious infirmities,” the Court concluded that the Special Judge failed to assign cogent reasons for entertaining the successive bail application and overlooked material considerations relevant to offences under the POCSO Act.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the criminal petition, set aside the order granting bail, and directed the accused to surrender before the concerned court within three days, failing which the police were granted liberty to secure his custody in accordance with law.
Case Title: De Facto Complainant v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 3825 of 2026
Counsel for Petitioner: K. Aishwarya Chowdary
Counsel for Respondent: Public Prosecutor, Kilaru Nithin Krishna