I. The Anatomy of the Case: Allegations,
Procedure, and the Bail Journey
The case, X v. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Anr., originated from an FIR registered in December 2024. The
core allegations were severe: a 14-year-old girl was repeatedly subjected to
penetrative sexual assault and gang-rape over six months by the accused, Respondent
No. 2 (Arjun), and his associates. The acts were allegedly committed under the
threat of a country-made pistol (katta) and recorded on a mobile phone for
blackmail. A specific incident on December 1, 2024, involved her abduction on a
motorcycle, further molestation, and abandonment.
The legal journey was fraught
with procedural red flags. The family’s attempt to lodge an FIR immediately was
allegedly met with police advice to "compromise." The FIR was
registered a day later. Despite the grave charges under the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
(POCSO) Act, the accused was not arrested until a month post-FIR, a delay
attributed by the prosecution to his "influential social status."
The victim’s statement before a
Magistrate under Section 183 BNSS (akin to Section 164 CrPC) provided a
consistent, detailed account. A chargesheet was filed in February 2025. The
trial court, weighing the seriousness of the allegations and the victim’s vulnerability,
denied bail. However, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in April 2025,
granted bail. It was this order that the appellant—the victim’s side—challenged
in the Supreme Court, leading to the present judgment.
II. The Prosecution’s Plea: Why Bail Was a
Grave Error
The appellant’s counsel mounted a
multi-pronged attack on the High Court’s bail order, grounding it in legal
principle and factual gravity:
1. Heinousness of the Offence:
The charges were not merely serious; they were amongst the most severe in the
statute book. These included aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a child
more than once (POCSO Section 5(l)), punishable by life imprisonment or even
death, and rape on a woman under sixteen (BNSS Section 65(1)), also carrying
life imprisonment. The use of a weapon and recording for blackmail added layers
of aggression and premeditation.
2. Statutory Presumption and
Irrelevance of Consent: Under the POCSO Act, given the victim’s undisputed
minority (her age was established via school certificate and medical
assessment), any question of "consensual relationship"—a defence
hinted at by the accused—was legally irrelevant. The Act creates a protective
wall around minors, recognizing their inherent inability to consent meaningfully
to such acts.
3. Prima Facie Corroboration:
The victim’s judicial confession under Section 183 BNSS and the medico-legal
examination report, which noted the gravity of the trauma consistent with
gang-rape, were argued to create a strong prima facie case. The High Court was
accused of overlooking this crucial material.
4. Material Suppression and
Post-Bail Conduct: A critical allegation was that the accused suppressed
the fact of the filed chargesheet from the High Court. Further, an application
was moved in the Supreme Court alleging that post-release, the accused was
stalking and intimidating the victim in their village, showing her the katta
and playing violent songs, causing her to stop attending school.
5. Precedent on Cancellation:
Reliance was placed on Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, where the
Supreme Court held that bail can be cancelled even without "supervening
circumstances" if the grant order ignored relevant material, considered
irrelevant factors, or was perverse given the charges' seriousness.
III. The Defence’s Counter: Inconsistencies,
Alibi, and the Right to Liberty
The counsel for the accused
painted a starkly different picture, aiming to deconstruct the prosecution’s
narrative:
1. Fabrication Due to
Animosity: The case was framed as a malicious prosecution sprung from the
victim’s family’s disapproval of her consensual acquaintance with the accused.
The FIR was lodged by a paternal uncle with mala fide intent.
2. Inconsistencies in Evidence:
The defence highlighted alleged contradictions between the FIR, the victim’s
statement under Section 180 BNSS (to police), and her later statement under
Section 183 BNSS (to Magistrate). The escalation of allegations from
molestation to rape, and the later introduction of details about filming and
multiple perpetrators, were presented as evidence of improvisation.
3. Lack of Medical
Corroboration: It was pointed out that the medical examination revealed no
physical injuries on the victim, a fact argued to weaken the case of violent
rape.
4. Plea of Alibi: The
accused claimed to have been out of the city from November 28 to December 2,
2024, with his father furnishing evidence to that effect—a claim the
prosecution was accused of not investigating properly.
5. Personal Circumstances of
the Accused: Emphasis was laid on the accused being just 18, with no
criminal record, who had already spent months in custody. Stressing the
reformative purpose of justice, it was argued that his future would be
irreparably harmed by continued incarceration.
6. Precedent on
Non-Interference: Citing Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, the defence argued that
appellate courts should not interfere with bail orders unless they are
"perverse, unreasoned, or ignore material considerations." The High
Court’s order was characterised as "well-reasoned."
IV. The Supreme Court’s Verdict: Reasserting
the Paramountcy of Victim Protection and Judicial Rigour
In a robust judgment, the Supreme
Court sided decisively with the appellant, cancelling the bail. Justice R.
Mahadevan, writing for the Bench also comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna,
identified "serious infirmities" in the High Court’s approach. The
Court’s reasoning provides a masterclass in applying bail jurisprudence to
cases of sexual violence against children:
1. Rejection of the
"Consensual Relationship" Defence: The Court categorically stated
this argument was "wholly untenable in law," especially where
allegations involve multiple perpetrators, coercion, intimidation, and
recording of acts. The POCSO Act’s framework leaves no room for this defence
when the victim is a minor.
2. Gravity Overrides All:
The Court held that the High Court "failed to take into account the nature
and gravity of the offences and the statutory rigour under the provisions of
the POCSO Act." The offences described—repeated gang-rape of a minor under
armed threat, recorded for blackmail—were deemed to have a "devastating
impact on the life of the victim and shake the collective conscience of
society."
3. Duty to Consider All
Material: The Supreme Court found the High Court’s omission to note the
filed chargesheet and its prima facie supporting material (the victim’s
judicial statement and medical report) to be a "manifestly erroneous"
exercise of discretion. Bail jurisprudence requires a consideration of the
investigation’s fruits, not just the stage of the case.
4. Victim-Centric Concerns Are
Decisive: The Court gave significant weight to the victim’s circumstances:
both residing in the same village, the counselling report noting her fear and
distress, and the allegations of post-bail intimidation. It cited State of
Bihar v. Rajballav Prasad to underscore that in serious sexual offences, the
likelihood of witness intimidation and the need to ensure a fair trial for the
victim are paramount considerations for denying bail.
5. Misapplication of
Precedent: The Court noted the High Court erroneously relied on Satender
Kumar Antil (general bail guidelines) and Manish Sisodia (bail due to prolonged
incarceration). The accused here had been in custody only for a few months,
making the factual correlation inapt. The Supreme Court reiterated that
precedent must be applied with due regard to factual matrix.
6. The Threshold for
Cancellation Met: Drawing from Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar, the Court
reiterated that cancellation is warranted where the grant order suffers from
material omissions, considers irrelevant factors, or is perverse. The High
Court’s order was found to be "vitiated by material misdirection and
non-consideration of relevant factors," rendering it "manifestly
perverse."
V. The Broader Legal Imperatives: A Message to
Courts
Beyond the specific case, the
judgment reinforces several non-negotiable tenets of Indian criminal
jurisprudence:
1.POCSO is a Sacred Trust:
The Court explicitly recognised the POCSO Act as a beneficial legislation for
child protection. Judicial officers handling such cases must be acutely aware
of its stringent provisions and the statutory presumptions it entails.
2.Bail is Not a Routine
Discretion in Heinous Crimes: While bail is the rule and jail the
exception, this principle is significantly qualified in cases involving heinous
crimes against vulnerable victims. The discretion to grant bail must be
exercised with extreme caution, giving paramount consideration to the nature of
the accusation, the evidence, and the potential impact on the victim and society.
3.The Victim’s Safety is Part
of the "Fair Trial" Calculus: A fair trial is not a right
accruing only to the accused. It equally encompasses the prosecution’s ability
to present its case without witnesses being threatened or traumatised. The
victim’s right to depose freely and without fear is a cornerstone of justice.
4.Reasoned Orders are a
Safeguard: The judgment implicitly underscores the necessity for courts to
pass detailed, reasoned bail orders that demonstrate conscious engagement with
all relevant material, especially when granting bail in serious cases.
Superficial or mechanically precedent-based orders are vulnerable to appeal.
Conclusion: A Resounding Reaffirmation
The Supreme Court’s decision in X
v. State of Uttar Pradesh is a powerful corrective. It serves as a solemn
reminder that the scales of justice, while always balanced, must weigh more
heavily towards protection when the crime alleged is an assault on childhood
itself. By cancelling the bail, the Court has not pronounced guilt—that is for
the trial to determine—but it has unequivocally stated that the allegations,
given their gravity and prima facie support, demanded a more rigorous judicial
response than the High Court provided.
For the legal community, the judgment
is a vital precedent on the cancellation of bail and the application of POCSO.
For society, it is a reassurance that the legal system can, and must, pivot to
shield its youngest and most vulnerable from perceived threats, even when those
threats come in the form of judicial orders that prematurely restore liberty.
The case now returns to the trial court, with a direction for expeditious
disposal, bringing the hope of a conclusive verdict closer for a young girl
awaiting justice.
Judgment Name: X v. State
of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 2026 (Supreme Court of
India, decided on January 09, 2026).
0 Comments