In a strong message regarding the principles of granting bail in heinous offenses, the Supreme Court of India has set aside an order of the Allahabad High Court that had granted bail to an accused in a grave POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) case.

The Division Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan observed that while the liberty of an individual is precious and bail should not be refused mechanically, it is equally true that it cannot be granted based on "irrelevant considerations" or by ignoring material evidence on record.

The case, titled X v. State of Uttar Pradesh, involves harrowing allegations. The prosecution contended that the accused, along with his friends, had repeatedly sexually assaulted a minor girl over a period of six months.

Aggravating Factors: The assaults were allegedly committed at gunpoint (using a country-made pistol), and the acts were recorded on a mobile phone to blackmail the victim into silence.
Procedural History: Despite these serious charges, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to the accused in April 2025. The victim subsequently moved the Supreme Court, fearing for her safety as the accused lived in the same locality and was allegedly intimidating her post-release.

The Supreme Court termed the High Court's order as "manifestly perverse" and "unreasonable." The Bench highlighted several critical errors in the lower court's approach:

1. Gravity of Offence Ignored: The Court noted that the High Court failed to appreciate the devastating impact of the crime—repeated penetrative sexual assault on a minor accompanied by blackmail.

"Such conduct has a devastating impact on the life of the victim and shakes the collective conscience of society."

2. Threat to Victim: The Bench pointed out that both the accused and the victim resided in the same locality. A Child Welfare Committee (CWC) report had already recorded the victim's psychological distress. The Court held that releasing the accused created a "real and imminent apprehension of intimidation," which could compromise the fairness of the trial.

3. The Balancing Act: The judgment reiterated the settled legal principle:

"While bail is not to be refused mechanically, it must not be granted on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring material evidence."

Where a court grants bail based on an incorrect appreciation of facts or material omissions—especially in crimes against children—the superior court is duty-bound to interfere to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted to the accused and directed him to surrender before the jurisdictional court within two weeks.

This judgment serves as a precedent that in cases involving sexual violence against minors, the "nature and gravity" of the offense and the "safety of the victim" are not just factors but paramount considerations that cannot be overridden by general principles of personal liberty.