The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a victim in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard before a court decides an application for anticipatory bail.
Justice Vivek Kumar Singh held that granting pre-arrest bail without complying with this requirement amounts to a serious procedural illegality. Such an order, the Court said, is liable to be treated as void from the outset where it violates a mandatory statutory requirement and the principles of natural justice.
The ruling came in a petition filed by a complainant challenging the anticipatory bail granted to two accused by the Special Judge under the POCSO Act at Bulandshahar.
The case stemmed from an FIR registered in February 2023. On January 17, 2026, the trial court granted anticipatory bail to the accused without issuing notice to the victim or informant.
The accused argued before the High Court that bail could not ordinarily be cancelled unless there was evidence that the accused had misused the liberty by threatening witnesses, tampering with evidence or otherwise interfering with the proceedings.
The High Court, however, drew a distinction between cancellation of bail because of conduct after its grant and setting aside a bail order because the order itself was legally defective.
According to the Court, where a bail order is passed in breach of a mandatory statutory requirement and without giving the affected victim an opportunity to be heard, the defect goes to the jurisdiction of the court itself. In such circumstances, subsequent misuse of bail is not a prerequisite for challenging the order.
The Bench also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra, which recognised the victim’s statutory right to participate in criminal proceedings, including proceedings concerning bail.
The Court consequently quashed the anticipatory bail order and sent the matter back to the trial court for fresh consideration. The trial court has been directed to issue notice to the victim and provide adequate time for objections before deciding the bail applications again.
At the same time, the High Court granted the accused interim protection from coercive action for six weeks, ensuring that they were not left without protection while the matter returned to the trial court.
The High Court also directed its Registrar General to circulate the judgment among all Special POCSO Courts functioning in Uttar Pradesh, highlighting the requirement to hear victims before deciding bail applications in such cases.