Brief Background
The Supreme Court in X v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 2026, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8173 of 2025, decided on 09 January 2026) addressed the legality of bail granted to an accused charged under the  POCSO Act, 2012 and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The case arose from allegations of repeated sexual assault and intimidation of a minor girl aged about fourteen years.

The prosecution alleged that the accused, Arjun, had known the victim for several months and repeatedly established physical relations with her by threatening her with a locally made firearm. Along with his friends, he allegedly molested and attempted to assault the victim on multiple occasions. On 01 December 2024, the victim was abducted, molested again, and abandoned at a bus stand, from where she contacted her uncle. The victim narrated the incidents to her family, who attempted to lodge a complaint the same day. However, the police initially refused to register an FIR and advised compromise. Eventually, FIR No. 426/2024 was registered on 02 December 2024 under provisions of the BNSS and POCSO Act.

The victim’s statement was recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS, corresponding to Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C., and her date of birth was certified as 18 July 2010, establishing her minority. A medico-legal examination corroborated the allegations of sexual assault. The accused was arrested only on 03 January 2025, owing to alleged influence exerted by his family. His bail application was rejected by the Sessions Court but subsequently allowed by the Allahabad High Court on 09 April 2025. The present appeal before the Supreme Court sought cancellation of that bail order.

Legal Submissions by the Parties

Appellant:

• The Appellant argued that the High Court erred in granting bail without considering the gravity of the charges. It was submitted that the accused repeatedly gang-raped a minor under armed intimidation, recorded the acts on a mobile phone, and suppressed material facts before the High Court, including the filing of the chargesheet. Such suppression, it was contended, amounted to abuse of process and was an independent ground for cancellation of bail.
• The Appellant emphasized that the victim’s statement under Section 183 BNSS was consistent and detailed, corroborated by medical evidence, and revealed the trauma suffered. The delay in arrest allowed the accused to intimidate the victim, and the High Court ignored these crucial aspects. Reliance was placed on Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) 8 SCC 559, which held that bail may be cancelled even absent supervening circumstances if relevant material is ignored or irrelevant considerations are taken into account.
• Further, the trial court had rightly rejected bail, but the High Court failed to accord due weight to the seriousness of the allegations. Reliance was placed on State of U.P. v. Sonu Kushwaha (Criminal Appeal No. 1633 of 2023) and Ramji Lal Bairwa v. State of Rajasthan 2024 INSC 846, which emphasized that offences under the POCSO Act are serious crimes against society and cannot be trivialized as private disputes.

Respondents:

• The Respondent-accused contended that he was innocent and falsely implicated due to personal animosity and disapproval of his association with the victim. It was argued that the FIR was lodged belatedly and inconsistencies existed between the victim’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS.
• The medico-legal examination revealed no injuries, undermining the prosecution’s case. The Respondent highlighted his young age of eighteen years, absence of criminal antecedents, and compliance with bail conditions.
• Reliance was placed on Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar (2020) 2 SCC 118, which held that interference with bail orders is warranted only when they are perverse or ignore material considerations. It was submitted that the High Court passed a reasoned order after assessing the facts, and no interference was warranted.

Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and cancelled the bail granted to the accused. The Court emphasized that the case involved allegations of gang rape of a minor, armed intimidation, and recording of the acts for blackmail. The plea of consensual relationship was untenable in law, particularly given the victim’s minority and the coercive circumstances. The victim’s statements and medico-legal report prima facie established the offences.

The Court reiterated that while filing of a chargesheet does not preclude consideration of bail, the nature and gravity of the offence must be duly considered. The High Court failed to appreciate the seriousness of repeated penetrative sexual assault upon a minor, committed under threats and intimidation. The omission to notice the chargesheet and the prima facie material rendered the High Court’s exercise of discretion manifestly erroneous.

The Court referred to Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar (2023) 13 SCC 549, which held that bail granted without due consideration of material factors warrants interference. It emphasized that cancellation of bail requires cogent circumstances, but where bail is granted ignoring relevant material or on irrelevant grounds, superior courts must step in to undo the damage. Delay in lodging FIR, the Court observed, cannot by itself be fatal, especially where threats and intimidation explain the delay.

The Court further noted that the victim resided in the same locality as the accused, creating a real apprehension of intimidation. Post-release conduct of the accused, including stalking and intimidation, aggravated the situation. In State of Bihar v. Rajballav Prasad (2017) 2 SCC 178, the Court had underscored that likelihood of witness intimidation and victim safety must weigh decisively in bail matters involving sexual offences against children. Applying these principles, the Court held that the High Court’s order suffered from serious infirmities and warranted cancellation.

By - C. George Thomas and Gurkaranbir Singh