It is of immense significance to note that none other than the Apex Court itself while ruling on the granting of bail in the exercise of its criminal appellate jurisdiction in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled X v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another in Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 2026 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8173 of 2025] and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2026 INSC 44 that was pronounced as recently as on January 9, 2026 has set aside the Allahabad High Court’s order granting bail to an accused in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act holding that the bail order was perverse, unreasonable and ignored relevant material on record. We thus see that the top court cancelled the bail that was granted by the Allahabad High Court while allowing an appeal that had been filed by the complainant/victim. Most commendably, it was made indubitably clear by the top court that while bail is not to be refused mechanically, it must not be granted on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring material evidence. No denying or disputing it!

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice R Mahadevan for a Bench of the Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Ms Justice BV Nagarathna and himself sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 2 that:
The present criminal appeal has been filed challenging the final judgment and order dated 09.04.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Hereinafter referred to as the High Court) in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9829 of 2025, whereby the High Court granted bail to Respondent No. 2 – accused in connection with FIR No. 426/2024 registered with Police Station Kandhla, District Shamli, Uttar Pradesh for offences punishable under Sections 65(1), 74, 137(2) 352 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short, BNSS) and Sections 5(l), 6, 9(g) and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (For short, POCSO Act).

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 3 while elaborating on the appellant’s case stating that:
The case of the appellant as projected in this appeal is as follows:

3.1. Respondent No. 2 by name Arjun – accused was known to the minor victim for about six months prior to the incident. As per the statement of the minor victim, Respondent No. 2 repeatedly established physical relations with her by threatening her and pointing a locally made firearm (katta) at her. It is further stated that along with Respondent No. 2, his friends namely Goldi, Amit, Rupak and Vedansh used to abuse and molest the minor victim and also attempted to establish physical relations with her.

3.2. On 01.12.2024 at around 05.30 p.m., when the minor victim was walking near her residence, the accused persons Arjun and Amit abducted her on their motorcycle, again molested her and ultimately abandoned her at Baraut Bus Stand, from where she contacted her uncle using a stranger’s mobile phone. Thereafter, the minor victim narrated the entire incident including the sexual assault committed by the accused persons over the past six months to her family members. Immediately, the family members of the minor victim rushed to the police station to lodge a complaint. However, the police failed to register the FIR on 01.12.2024 and instead advised the minor victim and her family members to compromise and settle the matter with the accused persons. Ultimately, FIR No. 426/2024 came to be registered on 02.12.2024 under Sections 75(2), 79 and 137(2) of the BNSS and Sections 9(g) and 10 of the POCSO Act against five accused persons including Respondent No. 2.

3.3. During the course of investigation, on 03.12.2024, the statements of the minor victim and her uncle were recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (For short, Cr.P.C). The investigating officer obtained a certificate from Inter College, Ailum, District Shamli, certifying the date of birth of the minor victim as 18.07.2010, which established that she was around 14 years of age at the time of the commission of the offence. On 05.12.2024, the statement of the minor victim was recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 164 Cr.P.C.) before the learned Magistrate, District Shamli, Uttar Pradesh. Thereafter, on 08.12.2024 the minor victim was medically examined and a medico-legal examination report was obtained, which revealed the gravity of the sexual offence committed against her.

3.4. Due to the influence exerted by the family members of the accused, Respondent No. 2 was not arrested immediately after registration of the FIR dated 02.12.2024 and was arrested only on 03.01.2025. Subsequently, he filed bail application which came to be dismissed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Shamli on 13.02.2025.

3.5. Upon completion of investigation, the investigating officer filed chargesheet on 19.02.2025 for offences punishable under Sections 65(1), 74, 137(2) and 352 of the BNSS and 5(l), 6, 9(g) and 10 of the POCSO Act. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2 approached the High Court by filing Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9829 of 2025. By the impugned judgment dated 09.04.2025, the High Court allowed the said application and enlarged Respondent No. 2 on bail, subject to certain conditions. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal seeking cancellation of the bail granted to Respondent No. 2.

While citing the relevant case laws, the Bench points out in para 5.6 that, Reliance was placed on the judgments of this Court in State of U.P. v. Sonu Kushwaha (Criminal Appeal No. 1633 of 2023 dated 05.07.2023) wherein it was observed that the POCSO Act was enacted to provide stringent punishment for offences involving child abuse and to safeguard children from sexual exploitation and in Ramji Lal Bairwa and another v. State of Rajasthan and others 2024 INSC 846 wherein it was reiterated that offences under the POCSO Act cannot be treated as private disputes and must be regarded as serious offences against society at large.

Be it noted, the Bench then notes in para 8 that:
The record reveals that the prosecution was instituted against Respondent No. 2 – accused on the basis of a complaint lodged by the uncle of the minor victim inter alia alleging commission of gang-rape, sexual assault and recording of the incident on a mobile phone for the purpose of blackmail. Initially, FIR No. 426/2024 was registered against five accused persons namely Respondent No. 2 Arjun (A1), Amit (A2), Goldi (A3), Rupak (A4) and Vedansh (A5). After investigation, chargesheet no. 38/2025 came to be filed on 19.02.2025 against Respondent No. 2 (A1) under Sections 65(1), 74, 137(2) and 352 of the BNSS and Sections 5(l), 6, 9(g) and 10 of the POCSO Act and against A2 to A4, excluding A5 under Sections 74 and 352 of the BNSS and Sections 9(g) and 10 of the POCSO Act. The present case pertains to Respondent No.2 (A1) alone.

8.1. It further discloses that the date of birth of the victim was ascertained from her educational records as 18.07.2010 and the medical officer assessed her age to be between 16-17 years. Though the FIR came to be registered on 02.12.2024, Respondent No. 2 was arrested only on 03.01.2025. His bail application was rejected by the District and Sessions Judge, Shamli upon consideration of the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS. However, by the impugned judgement, Respondent No. 2 came to be released on bail. Hence, the present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant.

Most significantly, the Bench then encapsulates in para 16 what constitutes the real cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that:
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.

As a corollary, the Bench then directs and holds in para 17 that:
In such view of the matter, the impugned judgment dated 09.04.2025 passed by the High Court cannot be sustained in law and is accordingly set aside. Consequently, the bail granted to Respondent No. 2 – accused is cancelled. Respondent No. 2 – accused is directed to surrender before the jurisdictional Court within a period of two weeks from today. In the event of his failure to do so, the trial Court shall take appropriate steps in accordance with law to secure his custody.

It would be instructive to note that the Bench hastens to add in para 18 noting that:
This Court is conscious of the fact that the POCSO Act is a beneficial legislation enacted to protect children from sexual offences and that proceedings under the said Act warrant prompt and sensitive handling. This Court has consistently emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of POCSO cases. At the same time, it is equally imperative that prosecutions must be subjected to careful judicial scrutiny so as to ensure that the process of law is not rendered oppressive. Accordingly, 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.

In addition, the Bench then further directs and holds in para 19 that:
With the aforesaid directions, this criminal appeal is allowed.

Finally, the Bench then concludes precisely by directing and holding in para 20 that:
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh