While Bail Is Not To Be Refused Mechanically, It Must Not Be Granted On Irrelevant Considerations: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently set aside the Allahabad High Court's order granting bail to a man in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act for allegedly committing rape and sexual assault on a minor girl. The Court noted that the bail order was perverse, unreasonable, and ignored the relevant material.

“It is settled law that the mere filing of a chargesheet does not, by itself, preclude consideration of an application for bail. However, while assessing such an application, the Court is duty-bound to have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence and the material collected during investigation. The offences alleged in the present case are heinous and grave involving repeated penetrative sexual assault upon a minor victim committed under armed intimidation and accompanied by recording of the acts for the purpose of blackmail. Such conduct has a devastating impact on the life of the victim and shakes the collective conscience of society.”, observed a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan, while allowing the appeal of the complainant/victim against the bail order.

The prosecution's case was that the accused, known to the victim, along with his friends, had sexually assaulted the minor repeatedly over six months. The assaults were allegedly committed under the threat of a country-made pistol (katta), and the acts were recorded on a mobile phone to blackmail the victim. The FIR was registered on December 02, 2024, after initial police reluctance.

After the Sessions Court denied him bail, the Allahabad High Court granted him bail in April 2025. The victim appealed to the Supreme Court against the grant of bail to the accused, also alleging that after his release, the accused was intimidating the victim in their village.

Setting aside the impugned order, the judgment authored by Justice Mahadevan observed that the impugned order failed to acknowledge the nature and gravity of the offence,

“The High Court, while granting bail to Respondent No. 2 – accused, failed to take into account the nature and gravity of the offences and the statutory rigour under the provisions of the POCSO Act.”, the court observed, adding that “the bail granted without due consideration of material factors warrants interference.”

Emphasizing that both the accused and victim reside in the same locality, the Court said the High Court did not consider the "real and imminent apprehension of intimidation and further trauma to the victim," which is crucial for a fair trial.

“It is also important to point out that the victim resides in the same locality as Respondent No. 2. The counselling report of the Child Welfare Committee records that the victim is under fear and psychological distress. The post-release presence of Respondent No. 2 gives rise to a real and imminent apprehension of intimidation and further trauma to the victim. In offences involving sexual assault against children, the likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses constitutes a grave and legitimate concern. The safety of the victim and the need to preserve the purity of the trial process assume paramount importance.”, the court observed, referencing State of Bihar v. Rajballav Prasad, (2017) 2 SCC 178.

“It is equally well settled that while bail is not to be refused mechanically, it must not be granted on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring material evidence. Where an order granting bail is founded on an incorrect appreciation of facts or suffers from material omissions or where it results in miscarriage of justice, this Court is empowered to interfere. In the present case, the grant of bail by the High Court is vitiated by material misdirection and non-consideration of relevant factors rendering the same manifestly perverse.”, the court added.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the bail granted to the Respondent No.2-accused. The accused was directed to surrender before the jurisdictional Court within a period of two weeks from the date of judgment.

Cause Title: X VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANOTHER

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 36

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Md. Ali, AOR Ms. Shalu, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR Mr. Ghanshyam Singh, Adv. Mr. Adesh Kr. Gill, Adv. Mr. Akas Gothwal, Adv. Dr. Reji Kumarr., Adv. Mr. Anurag Pandey, Adv. Mr. Suraj Pal Singh Mina, Adv. Mr. Nagenra Singh, Adv. Ms. Akansha, AOR Mr. Naman Raj Singh, Adv. Mr. Sparsh Choudhary, Adv. Ms. Srishti Mishra, Adv. Ms. Anjali Saxena, Adv. Dr. Amardeep Gaur, Adv.

Related: Supreme Court Summarises Principles Regarding Appeals Against Grant Of Bail