[S.483(2) BNSS] Calcutta High Court Suspends Bail Granted To POCSO Accused By Trial Court Without Hearing Victim

The Calcutta High Court has suspended the bail granted to a man accused under the POCSO Act, by the trial court, after finding that the bail had been granted without hearing the victim in the case.Justice Bivas Pattanayak held: "In the present case, undisputedly, the informant/victim was not notified about the bail application filed by the opposite party no.2 and, therefore, there is factually a denial of right to the informant/victim to participate in the proceedings which is recognised under Section 483(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (in short, 'BNSS'). In view of the circumstances as enumerated above, since while considering the bail application of the accused opposite party no.2 by the learned trial court, the participatory right of the informant/victim was not secured, as mandated under law, the arguments advanced on behalf of the opposite party no.2 does not hold good.""I am inclined to suspend the order of the trial court dated 9th June, 2025 granting bail to the opposite party no.2 for a period of three weeks," he added.The court thus directed the accused to surrender before the trial court and pray for bail afresh.BackgroundThe present application was filed seeking cancellation of bail granted in respect of offences pertaining to the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the 'POCSO Act'). The cancellation of bail has been sought on a solitary ground that the impugned order of the Trial Court dated 9th June, 2025, granting bail to the opposite party No.2 has been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the informant/victim or her authorized representative.Kaustav Bagchi, Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that it is a settled proposition of law that the victim/informant of a sexual offence has to be given an opportunity of hearing/participation at the stage of bail hearing. The Trial Court without giving such opportunity has passed the order granting bail to opposite party no.2 which is perverse.Advocate appearing for the opposite party No.2 submitted that setting aside an order granting bail and cancellation of bail are two distinct concepts. While former contemplates the correctness of the order itself, the latter pertains to the conduct of the accused subsequent to the order granting bail. The bail can be cancelled only on the ground of any supervening circumstances, like tampering of evidence either during investigation or during trial, threatening of witness, etc.Court noted that the primary issue on which the bail order is challenged was the denial of opportunity to the petitioner/de facto complainant or the victim to participate and oppose the bail application.It held that sub-section (2) of Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 provides for the presence of the informant or any person authorised by him at the time of hearing of bail application in sexual offences involving rape of minors.Thus, it suspended the bail and directed the accused to apply afresh.Case: In Re : XXXCase No: C.R.M.(M) 1148 of 2025Click here to read order

[S.483(2) BNSS] Calcutta High Court Suspends Bail Granted To POCSO Accused By Trial Court Without Hearing Victim

Srinjoy Das

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

[S.483(2) BNSS] Calcutta High Court Suspends Bail Granted To POCSO Accused By Trial Court Without Hearing Victim

Srinjoy Das

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers