Bail In POCSO Case Can Be Set Aside If Victim Not Heard : Kerala High Court

Update: 2026-03-10 05:20 GMT
Click the Play button to listen to article
story

The Kerala High Court has held that bail granted to an accused in offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act can be set aside if the victim or guardian is not given an opportunity to be heard before the bail order is passed.Justice C. Pratheep Kumar was considering a criminal miscellaneous case seeking to set aside the bail order granted by the Sessions...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

The Kerala High Court has held that bail granted to an accused in offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act can be set aside if the victim or guardian is not given an opportunity to be heard before the bail order is passed.

Justice C. Pratheep Kumar was considering a criminal miscellaneous case seeking to set aside the bail order granted by the Sessions Court Kottayam to the accused in a case under Section 351 (Criminal Intimation) BNS and sections of POCSO Act.

The father of the victim in the case approached the High Court contending that no notice of the bail application was served on the victim or his family, violating statutory safeguards.

The Court examined Section 40 of the POCSO Act, which guarantees the child's family or guardian the right to assistance of a legal counsel, Rule 4(13)–(15) of the POCSO Rules, 2020, which obligate authorities to keep the child and guardian informed about developments in the case, including bail proceedings and Section 483(2) BNSS, which makes the presence of the informant or an authorised person obligatory during the hearing of bail applications in certain serious offences.

The Court observed that in Arjun Kishanrao Maige v. State of Maharashtra [2021 KHC 3867], the Bombay High Court has emphasized that the POCSO framework requires that the victim's family be notified of bail proceedings to enable meaningful participation.

The Court also relied on Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra @Monu and Another [2022 (3) KHC 449], which recognised that victims have substantive and enforceable rights to participate in criminal proceedings, including at the stage of bail.

The Court noted that the victim is entitled to be heard before granting bail to the accused in serious and heinous offences.

“In the light of Section 40 of the PoCSO Act, Rule 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2020 (PoCSO Rules, 2020) as well as sub-section (2) of Section 483 BNSS, as well as the precedents referred above, it can be seen that the victim is entitled to be heard, before granting bail to the accused, especially in serious and heinous offences.” Court noted

The Court thus set aside the bail granted by the Sessions Judge on the ground that the victim was not given an opportunity to be heard.

It further directed the Sessions Judge to dispose of the bail application afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of hearing the victim as well.

Case Title: X v State of Kerala and Anr.

Case No: Crl. MC 516/ 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 137

Counsel for Petitioner: C S Manilal, S Nidheesh

Counsel for Respondents: Usha baby, K G Raji

Click Here To Read/ Download Judgment

Tags:    

Similar News