• thebarbulletin@gmail.com

Voices. Verdicts. Vision

Voices. Verdicts. Vision

Join Whatsapp Group

Supreme Court revokes Bail in POCSO Case; Raps Rajasthan HC for granting relief without proper reasoning

Jamnalal v. State of Rajasthan [Decided on 6th August, 2025]
The Supreme Court has set aside the bail granted by the Rajasthan High Court to a man convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act for raping a 14-year-old girl. The case arose from a 2023 incident where the victim, a minor, was sexually assaulted at gunpoint in a field. The Trial Court had convicted the accused under Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹50,000.

The Court noted that despite the seriousness of the offence, the Rajasthan High Court suspended the sentence in September 2024 during the pendency of the appeal, relying on speculative observations such as the lack of visible injuries, absence of FSL/DNA reports, and disbelief that the victim went outside to defecate despite having access to washrooms. A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and K.V. Viswanathan strongly criticised the High Court’s approach, noting that (at para 12)

Taking into account the fact that the High Court has not adverted to any of the relevant factors for considering the case for suspension under Section 389 and keeping in mind the antecedents, we are of the opinion that High Court was not justified in suspending the sentence.

The Court also took note of the accused’s criminal history, which included 11 FIRs involving serious offences, some of which are still pending. Additionally, a post-trial FSL report submitted by the State indicated the presence of male DNA/semen on the victim’s clothes, reinforcing the prosecution’s case.

The Court also said

The reasoning of the High Court, set out above, falls far short of the parameters required under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. for enlargement of a convict, punished for heinous offence, on bail after suspending the sentence.

Respondent No. 2 argued that in the absence of any post-bail misconduct or violation of conditions, the bail order should not be interfered with. However, this contention is misplaced. There exists a well-settled legal distinction between cancellation of bail and setting aside of bail by a higher court. While cancellation is triggered by subsequent events such as breach of bail conditions or misuse of liberty setting aside is based on a review of the original bail order’s legality, propriety, and soundness at the time it was granted. In this case, the issue is not post-bail conduct, but whether the High Court’s decision to grant bail was legally justified in the first place. This principle is clearly affirmed in Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 16 SCC 508.

The Court further directed the accused to surrender by August 30, 2025, failing which the State was instructed to take him into custody.

Appearances: 

Appellant, Ms. Sansriti Pathak,
Respondent – Learned Additional Advocate General for State of Rajasthan,
Mr. Namit Saxena for Respondent No.2

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2025 The Bar Bulletin. All rights reserved by Gotech digi