The Calcutta High Court allowed an application under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking cancellation of bail granted to an accused in a POCSO Act case. The Court suspended the trial court’s bail order dated June 9, 2025, on the sole ground that it was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the informant/victim or her authorized representative, thereby violating the victim’s participatory rights in criminal proceedings.
The petitioner sought cancellation of bail granted to the accused for offences punishable under Section 65 or Sub-Section 2 of Section 70 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, contending that the trial court had passed the bail order without providing the informant/victim an opportunity to be heard. The petitioner argued that it was a settled proposition of law that victims/informants of sexual offences have the right to participate at the stage of bail hearings, and the trial court’s failure to provide such opportunity rendered the order perverse. Reliance was placed on i) Jagjeet Singh & Ors. versus Ashish Mishra alias Monu & Anr. reported in (2022) 9 SCC 321 (ii) Arjun Kishan Rao Malge versus State of Maharashtra & Ors, (2021) SCC OnLine Bom 551 (iii) Hariram Bhambhi versus Satyanaraya, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1010 (iv) Miss G.(Minor) Thr. her versus State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., 2020 SCC OnLine Del 629 (v) Informant versus State of Karnataka, by Maddur Police & Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine Kar 69.
However, the accused rejected the petitioner’s claim and contended that setting aside an order granting bail and cancellation of bail are two different concepts. It was argued that the cancellation requires supervening circumstances like tampering of evidence, threatening witnesses, or likelihood of absconding. The accused contended that challenging the correctness of a bail order should be done through appeal or revision, not cancellation proceedings. It was further submitted that Rule 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2020 places the responsibility and on SJPU or local police to keep victims informed of developments, not on the accused to notify victims of bail applications. He relied on i) Ashok Dhankad versus State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., 2025 Supreme (SC) 1196, (ii) Union of India rep. by the Inspector of Police National Investigation Agency Chennai Branch versus Barakathullah Etc., 2024 Supreme (SC) 503, and (iii) Emlang Laloo versus Anitimary Mawlong & Anr. , 2024 Supreme (Online)(SC) 8208.
Finding that the informant/victim was undisputedly not notified about the bail application, the Court concluded that there was factual denial of the victim’s right to participate in proceedings as recognized under Section 483(2) of BNSS. The Court held that bail applications for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita or POCSO Act cannot be heard and disposed of without giving opportunity to the informant/victim to be heard, placing an obligation on courts and prosecution to keep victims informed about criminal proceedings stages.
Accordingly, Justice Bivas Pattanayak suspended the trial court’s bail order dated June 9, 2025 for three weeks and directed the accused to surrender before the trial court on September 11, 2025 to apply for regular bail afresh. The Court directed that the informant or her representative shall attend and participate in the fresh bail hearing in accordance with law, with the Public Prosecutor producing the case diary on that date. The matter was listed for further hearing on 18th september, 2025.
Cases relied on:
Jagjeet Singh & Ors. versus Ashish Mishra alias Monu & Anr. reported in (2022) 9 SCC 321
Arjun Kishan Rao Malge versus State of Maharashtra & Ors, (2021) SCC OnLine Bom 551
Hariram Bhambhi versus Satyanaraya, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1010
Miss G.(Minor) Thr. her versus State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., 2020 SCC OnLine Del 629
Informant versus State of Karnataka, by Maddur Police & Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine Kar 69.
Ashok Dhankad versus State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., 2025 Supreme (SC) 1196
Union of India rep. by the Inspector of Police National Investigation Agency Chennai Branch versus Barakathullah Etc., 2024 Supreme (SC) 503,
Emlang Laloo versus Anitimary Mawlong & Anr. , 2024 Supreme (Online)(SC) 8208.
Appearances:
Petitioner: Kaustav Bagchi, Debayan Ghosh, Priti Kar
State: Md. Anwor Hossain, Debanik Das
Opposite Party No.2: Debasis Kar, Arka Tilak Bhadra
