The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal challenging the High Court's bail order in a case involving serious sexual offences against a minor -- The Court found that the accused had suppressed the crucial fact of chargesheet filing before the High Court -- The High Court failed to properly consider the gravity of offences under POCSO Act and BNSS, the victim's detailed statement, medico-legal evidence, and the influential position of the accused -- The bail order was set aside as perverse and unjustified, and bail was cancelled -- The Court emphasized the need for careful consideration of all relevant factors in bail matters involving serious offences against children
Criminal Law-- Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, (BNSS) 2023-- Sections 65(1), 74, 137(2) and 352-- Protection of children from sexual offences Act, 2012-- Sections 5(1), 6, 9(g) and 10-- Commission of gang rape on minor victim girl-- Sexual assault-- Recording of incident on a mobile phone for the purpose of black mailing-- Threat also given to the victim girl-- Complaint lodged-- Respondent no.2/accused arrested-- Charge sheet filed-- Bail granted to accused/respondent no.2 by high court-- Aggrieved-- Challenged to the order of granting bail to respondent no.2/accused-- Serious allegations of gang rape coupled with sexual assault and threat-- No substance in the contention that there was consensual relationship particularly when allegation against more than single accused-- Statement recorded before magistrate prima facie establish the commission of offence -- Consistencies in medical report and statement of victim-- Mere filing of charge sheet does not by itself preclude consideration of an application for bail-- Nature, seriousness and gravity of offence required to be seen while granting bail-- Case of Bhagwan Singh (Supra) referred-- Safety of victim-- Non consideration of relevant factors by high court-- Impugned order of granting bail to respondent no.2 accused set aside-- Appeal Allowed
Para-- 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17
The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal, set aside the High Court's bail order dated 09.04.2025, and cancelled the bail granted to Respondent No. 2
Citation: 2026 LawText (SC) (01) 39
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 2026 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8173 of 2025]
Date of Decision: 2026-01-09
Case Title: Whether the High Court's order granting bail to the accused was legally sustainable given the suppression of material facts and failure to consider the gravity of offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Before Judge: B. V. NAGARATHNA J. , R. MAHADEVAN J.
Equivalent Citations: 2026 INSC 44
Advocate(s): Not specified in provided text
Appellant: X
Respondent: The State of Uttar Pradesh, Arjun (Respondent No. 2)
Nature of Litigation: Criminal appeal challenging bail order in sexual offence case against minor
Remedy Sought: Appellant seeking cancellation of bail granted to Respondent No. 2 by High Court
Filing Reason: Alleged perverse bail order ignoring gravity of offences and material facts
Previous Decisions: FIR registered on 02.12.2024 -- Chargesheet filed on 19.02.2025 -- Bail denied by Sessions Court on 13.02.2025 -- Bail granted by High Court on 09.04.2025
Issues: Whether the High Court's bail order was legally sustainable Whether suppression of material facts warranted bail cancellation Whether the gravity of offences was properly considered by the High Court
Submissions/Arguments: Accused suppressed material fact of chargesheet filing before High Court -- High Court failed to consider gravity of sexual offences against minor -- Medico-legal evidence and victim's statement corroborated allegations -- Accused had influential position and delayed arrest -- High Court relied on irrelevant considerations like FIR delay -- Bail order was perverse and unreasonable
Ratio Decidendi: Bail may be cancelled when material facts are suppressed before the court -- Courts must consider the gravity of offences, especially in cases involving sexual offences against minors -- Bail orders that ignore relevant material and consider irrelevant factors are perverse and liable to be set aside -- The influential position of the accused vis-à-vis the victim is a relevant consideration in bail matters
Judgment Excerpts: The High Court granted bail to Respondent No. 2 without due regard to the seriousness and gravity of the charges Respondent No. 2 deliberately suppressed a crucial and material fact before the High Court, particularly the filing of the chargesheet The grant of bail to Respondent No. 2 is perverse, unreasonable and contrary to settled principles of law governing bail in serious offences against minor victims
Procedural History: FIR registered on 02.12.2024 -- Accused arrested on 03.01.2025 -- Bail denied by Sessions Court on 13.02.2025 -- Chargesheet filed on 19.02.2025 -- Bail granted by High Court on 09.04.2025 -- Supreme Court appeal filed -- Supreme Court hearing and decision
