The Calcutta High Court has cancelled the bail granted to an accused in a POCSO case involving allegations of aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a 14-year-old girl. The Court held that trial courts cannot grant bail in serious child sexual offence cases merely because the investigation has concluded and a chargesheet has been filed.
Justice Bivas Pattanayak stressed that courts must exercise bail discretion carefully. Judges must assess the gravity of the allegations, the vulnerability of the child victim, and the risk of witness intimidation. Bail cannot be granted “as a matter of course.” The Court found that the Sessions Court failed to apply its mind.
Prosecution Case and Background
The victim’s mother lodged a complaint at Egra Police Station. She alleged that the accused, who worked as the girl’s English tutor and a civic volunteer, repeatedly sexually exploited her minor daughter.
Police registered an FIR under Section 376(3) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
The accused first sought anticipatory bail, but the court rejected it. After he surrendered, the court also denied his regular bail application, noting the seriousness of the allegations.
However, soon after the police filed the chargesheet, the Sessions Court granted bail within ten days. Aggrieved by this order, the de facto complainant approached the High Court seeking cancellation of bail.
Challenge to the Bail Order
Before the High Court, the complainant argued that the police hurried the investigation and failed to collect crucial evidence, including complete medical records. She also alleged that the accused threatened the victim after securing bail.
The complainant contended that the trial court treated the filing of the chargesheet as decisive. She argued that the court passed a mechanical order without examining the seriousness of the offence.
The accused raised a preliminary objection. He argued that the complainant had already filed a cancellation plea before the trial court, which the court rejected.
The High Court dismissed this objection. It clarified the difference between cancelling bail due to later misconduct and setting aside a bail order that is illegal or perverse. The Court held that it can independently examine the legality of the original bail order under Section 439(2) CrPC, even without supervening circumstances.
Court’s Findings
The High Court examined the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC. In her statement, the minor alleged repeated penetrative sexual assault. She also alleged blackmail through obscene photographs and coercion. The girl described severe mental trauma and stated that she had attempted suicide.
Justice Pattanayak emphasised that courts must treat a child victim’s statement in POCSO cases with due seriousness.
The Court found it “surprising” that the same court earlier denied bail after noting incriminating material but later granted bail without analysing key factors. The Sessions Court failed to consider:
- The nature and gravity of the offence
- The severity of punishment
- The risk of witness intimidation
- The broader societal impact
The High Court reiterated that bail orders in serious offences must record clear reasons. Courts must demonstrate proper application of mind, especially in cases involving crimes against children.
The complainant also relied on the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act. The High Court clarified that this presumption mainly operates at the trial stage once foundational facts are established. However, the Court held that even without relying on Section 29, the bail order could not stand because it ignored settled bail principles.
Directions
The High Court held that the Sessions Court’s order was perverse and legally unsustainable. It cancelled the bail and directed the accused to surrender before the trial court within ten days. If he fails to do so, the authorities will take coercive steps.
Case: X v State of West Bengal
