Calcutta High Court Cancels Bail Of POCSO Accused, Flags Trial Court's 'Mechanical' Grant Of Bail Once Chargesheet Was Filed

The Calcutta High Court has cancelled the bail granted to an accused booked for aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a 14-year-old girl, holding that a trial court cannot grant liberty in serious POCSO cases merely because the chargesheet has been filed. Setting aside the order of the Sessions Court, Justice Bivas Pattanayak observed that bail discretion must be exercised judiciously after considering the gravity of allegations, the vulnerability of the child victim, and the likelihood of witness intimidation, and not “as a matter of course.”

The Court said the impugned bail order reflected clear non-application of mind. Despite earlier rejecting the accused's anticipatory and regular bail on the ground of seriousness of the offence, the trial court granted bail within ten days solely because the investigation had culminated in a chargesheet. Such a change in view without any alteration in circumstances, the High Court noted, was legally unsustainable.

The prosecution case originated from a complaint lodged by the victim's mother at Egra Police Station alleging repeated sexual exploitation of her minor daughter by the accused, who was stated to be her English tutor and a civic volunteer. An FIR was registered under Section 376(3) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The accused's anticipatory bail plea was rejected, and even after surrender, regular bail was refused. However, after filing of the chargesheet, the Sessions Court allowed bail, prompting the de facto complainant to seek cancellation.

Before the High Court, the complainant contended that the investigation had been hurriedly completed without collecting crucial evidence, that medical records were not fully secured, and that the accused had threatened the victim after being released. It was argued that the trial court ignored the seriousness of the offence and passed a mechanical order treating filing of the chargesheet as a determinative factor.

At the threshold, the accused questioned maintainability on the ground that a later application for cancellation had already been rejected by the trial court. Rejecting the objection, the High Court clarified the distinction between cancellation of bail due to subsequent misconduct and setting aside a perverse or illegal bail order. It held that the High Court, under Section 439(2) CrPC, is fully competent to independently examine whether the original order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities, even without supervening circumstances.

Examining the record, the Court placed weight on the minor victim's statement under Section 164 CrPC, in which she specifically accused the tutor of repeated penetrative sexual assault, blackmail through obscene photographs, and coercion, adding that she had suffered severe mental trauma and even attempted suicide. The Court emphasised that a child victim's testimony in POCSO cases carries heightened significance and cannot be treated lightly.

The High Court found it “surprising” that the same court which earlier acknowledged incriminating material against the accused subsequently granted bail without analysing the nature and gravity of the offence, severity of punishment, risk of witness intimidation, or societal impact. Reiterating settled law, the Court said bail orders in serious offences must contain reasons reflecting application of mind, particularly when allegations involve crimes against children.

Stressing the object of the POCSO Act, the Court observed that sexual offences against children are not private disputes but crimes against society, and courts must exercise greater caution before enlarging an accused on bail. Grant of bail on irrelevant considerations, it held, vitiates the order itself.

Though the complainant relied on the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, the Court clarified that such presumption operates after foundational facts are established and primarily at the stage of trial. Nevertheless, even independent of that aspect, the bail order failed because it ignored fundamental principles governing grant of bail.

Holding the order to be perverse and legally unsustainable, the Court cancelled the bail and directed the accused to surrender before the trial court within ten days, failing which coercive steps would be taken.

Case: X v State of West Bengal

Case No: C.R.M. (M) 1069 of 2025

Click here to read order