The Allahabad High Court has directed all Special POCSO Courts in Uttar Pradesh to ensure that victims or their guardians receive an adequate opportunity of hearing before anticipatory bail applications are decided on merits. The Court also made it mandatory to provide experienced legal aid counsel at state expense when a victim cannot afford a private lawyer.
Justice Vivek Kumar Singh issued the directions in an order dated September 29 while setting aside anticipatory bail granted to two accused in a POCSO case from Bulandshahr. The High Court found that the trial court had granted pre-arrest bail without issuing proper notice to the victim or allowing her to present her objections.
The Court held that failure to comply with the mandatory hearing requirement amounted to a serious procedural illegality and violated the principles of natural justice.
Bail Order Can Be Set Aside Even Without Misconduct by Accused
During the proceedings, counsel representing the accused argued that anticipatory bail could not be cancelled unless the prosecution established misconduct after bail was granted.
Rejecting the submission, the High Court distinguished between cancellation of bail because of subsequent misconduct and setting aside a bail order that was legally defective from the outset.
The Court explained that allegations of evidence tampering or violation of bail conditions become relevant when cancellation is sought because of subsequent developments. However, an order granting bail in disregard of mandatory statutory requirements or without applying judicial mind can be set aside independently of any post-bail misconduct.
Justice Singh held that granting anticipatory bail without hearing the victim, despite the statutory requirement, constituted a fundamental procedural defect. Such an order could not be sustained merely because the accused had not misused the protection granted to them.
Trial Court Admitted No Formal Notice Was Issued
The High Court examined whether the complainant had received proper notice before the trial court granted anticipatory bail on January 17, 2026.
When asked to explain the procedure followed, the trial court acknowledged that it had not issued any formal notice before deciding the applications.
It maintained that the complainant had been informed about the pending proceedings through a telephone call, relying on a police notice attached to its response.
However, the High Court found that the document carried neither the complainant’s nor the victim’s signature. It also failed to identify who had received the telephone call or establish how the information had been communicated to the complainant.
The Court concluded that the material did not establish compliance with the requirement of providing the victim a meaningful opportunity to participate in the bail proceedings.
It further observed that denying the victim an opportunity to be heard prevented her from placing relevant circumstances before the court, including the seriousness of the allegations and concerns regarding her safety.
Case Originated From February 2023 FIR
The proceedings arose from a case registered in Bulandshahr on February 6, 2023, involving allegations of molestation of a minor, causing hurt, criminal intimidation and offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
Police initially submitted a closure report, which the complainant challenged. In February 2025, the Special POCSO Court accepted the objection and proceeded with the matter as a complaint case.
The complainant was directed to produce evidence supporting the allegations. After examining the witnesses and other material, the trial court summoned both accused in October 2025 to face proceedings on the charges mentioned in the original FIR.
The accused subsequently approached the Special POCSO Court for anticipatory bail, which was granted on January 17, 2026.
The victim’s family challenged that order before the High Court, contending that the bail applications had been decided without giving the victim or her guardian an opportunity to oppose them.
Fresh Hearing Ordered, Six-Week Protection Granted
Finding the bail order legally unsustainable, the High Court set it aside and remanded the applications to the Special POCSO Court for fresh consideration.
The trial court has been directed to restore the anticipatory bail applications to their original numbers and issue proper notice to the complainant or victim. It must also provide reasonable time for filing objections or a counter-affidavit, if necessary.
After hearing the victim and the State, the court must decide the applications afresh on their merits, without being influenced by observations contained in either the earlier bail order or the High Court’s judgment.
At the same time, the High Court granted the two accused interim protection from coercive action for six weeks. The trial court has been asked to make every effort to complete the fresh hearing and decide the applications within that period.
The High Court’s directions concerning notice, victim participation and state-funded legal assistance will apply to Special POCSO Courts throughout Uttar Pradesh.
