'Unsettles The Collective Conscience': SC Revokes Bail In Uttar Pradesh Minor's Assault Case
Citing a 2023 judgment, the apex court has reiterated that bail granted without due consideration of material factors warrants interference.
By Sumit Saxena
Published : January 10, 2026 at 5:26 PM IST
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday has revoked the bail granted by the Allahabad High Court to a youth, in Uttar Pradesh, accused of repeatedly committing penetrative sexual assault on a minor under armed intimidation and recording the act for purposes of blackmail.
The apex court observed that such conduct inflicts irreparable harm on the victim's life and profoundly unsettles the collective conscience of society, and stressed, "the safety of the victim and the need to preserve the purity of the trial process assume paramount importance."
The bench set aside the April 9, 2025 order of the high court granting bail to the accused and directed him to surrender before court within two weeks.
A bench comprising Justices B V Nagarathna and R Mahdevan said that the offences alleged in the present case are heinous and grave. "Such conduct has a devastating impact on the life of the victim and shakes the collective conscience of society," the apex court said in the judgment.
The bench observed that 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, it added.
"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," said the judgment.
The bench said the omission to notice that the chargesheet had already been filed, coupled with the prima facie material emerging from the victim's statements renders the exercise of discretion by the high court manifestly erroneous.
"Moreover, the high court failed to apply the settled parameters governing the grant of bail including the gravity of the offence, the vulnerability of the victim and the likelihood of witness intimidation," it said.
Citing a 2023 judgment, the bench observed that in the context of cancellation of bail in a POCSO offence, this court has reiterated that bail granted without due consideration of material factors warrants interference.
The bench said in the present case, the accused had remained in custody for only a few months. "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," said the apex court.
The bench said 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," it said.
The bench said 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.
It added that 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," it said.
The bench said that the court is conscious of the fact that the POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) Act is a beneficial legislation enacted to protect children from sexual offences and that proceedings under the law warrant prompt and sensitive handling.
The bench said this court has consistently emphasised the need for expeditious disposal of POCSO cases.
"The trial court is directed to give priority to the present case, conclude the trial and pass appropriate orders on its own merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible," said the apex court.
Also Read
