Patna: The Patna High Court has cancelled the regular bail granted to four accused in a POCSO case in Khagaria, holding that the lower court committed a serious legal error by granting bail just four days after rejecting their anticipatory bail pleas on the same material.
Justice Sandeep Kumar delivered the judgment on August 7 in connection with Khagaria Women’s Police Station Case No. 9/2025.
The special judge had rejected the accused’s anticipatory bail applications on July 15, 2025. Four days later, on July 19, the accused surrendered before the court and were granted regular bail on the same day.
‘Surrender Was Not A New Circumstance’
The High Court compared the two orders and noted that only two circumstances had changed between July 15 and July 19: the accused had surrendered and the Special Public Prosecutor had consented to bail.
The court said surrender may be necessary for consideration of regular bail, but surrender itself does not constitute a new circumstance warranting bail.
It also stressed that a court cannot abdicate its judicial responsibility merely because the prosecution agrees to bail. The court must independently assess the material available in the case diary.
The High Court observed that the special judge had, in effect, reversed a conclusion reached only four days earlier without a legally sufficient basis.
Victim’s Mother Was Not Heard
The court also took serious note of the fact that neither the victim’s mother nor the informant was issued notice or given an opportunity to be heard when regular bail was granted.
In a sensitive POCSO case, the High Court said, the victim’s side must be given a fair opportunity to present its position.
The case diary contained statements from the informant, the victim and other witnesses supporting the prosecution case. Injury reports were also available and specific allegations had been made against the accused.
Court Says POCSO Charge Cannot Be Judged At Bail Stage
The High Court also criticised the approach of assessing, at the bail stage, whether a charge under the POCSO Act was ultimately established.
It said the court at this stage is required to form only a limited prima facie view based on the material available. Whether a POCSO charge is made out is to be determined during the framing of charges and subsequently at trial.
The court further clarified that the fact that an injury was minor or was not on a sensitive part of the body does not by itself weaken a charge under Section 8 of the POCSO Act.
Physical injury, it said, is not an essential element of the offence. Therefore, the nature of the injury could not have been treated as decisive while considering bail.
Accused Directed To Surrender Within Two Weeks
The High Court set aside the July 19, 2025, regular bail order and cancelled the bail bonds of all four accused.
They have been directed to surrender before the lower court within two weeks. After surrendering, they may apply for regular bail afresh.
Any fresh bail application must be considered after issuing notice to the victim’s mother and giving her an adequate opportunity to be heard.
The High Court also asked the Special Judge to exercise greater caution in future cases involving sensitive offences under the POCSO Act.
The judgment reiterated that a lower court cannot alter a previous judicial conclusion merely because an accused has surrendered or because the prosecution has consented to bail.
