LexX versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 484 : 2026 INSC 44 X v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 2026) 09 January 2026 [B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the High Court erred in granting bail to respondent no. 2-accused without due consideration of the heinous nature of the acts alleged to have been committed against the minor victim-gang-rape and sexual assault threatening with deadly weapon and recording of the incident. Headnotes† Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – ss.5(l), 6, 9(g) and 10 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – ss.65(1), 74, 137(2) and 352 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Cancellation of bail in POCSO offence – Commission of offence of gang-raping a minor and sexual assault threatening her with deadly weapon and recording of the incident on a mobile phone, by respondent no. 2 and his friends – Registration of FIR – After investigation, chargesheet filed against respondent no. 2 u/ss.65(1), 74, 137(2) and 352 BNS and ss. 5(l), 6, 9(g) and 10 POCSO Act and against A2 to A4, u/ss.74 and 352 BNS and ss.9(g) and 10 POCSO Act – Respondent no.2 sought bail, which was denied by the trial court, however allowed by the High Court – Justification: Held: Impugned judgment suffers from serious infirmities – Submission regarding consensual relationship between the parties wholly untenable in law – Statements of the victim recorded u/s.183 BNSS read with the Medico-legal examination report prima facie establish the commission of the alleged offences – Mere filing of chargesheet does not, by itself, preclude consideration of an application for bail – However, while assessing such an application, the Court duty-bound to have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence and the material collected during investigation – Offences alleged are heinous and grave involving repeated * Author [2026] 1 S.C.R. 485 X v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another penetrative sexual assault upon a minor victim committed under armed intimidation and accompanied by recording of the acts for the purpose of blackmail – Such conduct has a devastating impact on the life of the victim and shakes the collective conscience of society – High Court, while granting bail to respondent no. 2 failed to take into account the nature and gravity of the offences, vulnerability of the victim, likelihood of witness intimidation and the statutory rigour under the provisions of the POCSO Act – Omission to notice that the chargesheet had already been filed, coupled with the prima facie material emerging from the victim’s statements renders the exercise of discretion by the High Court manifestly erroneous – Also, victim resides in the same locality as respondent no. 2 and counselling report of the Child Welfare Committee records that the victim is under fear and psychological distress – Post-release presence of respondent no. 2 gives rise to a real and imminent apprehension of intimidation and further trauma to the victim – In offences involving sexual assault against children, the likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses constitutes a grave and legitimate concern – Safety of the victim and the need to preserve the purity of the trial process assume paramount importance – While bail is not to be refused mechanically, it must not be granted on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring material evidence – Grant of bail by the High Court is vitiated by material misdirection and non-consideration of relevant factors rendering the same manifestly perverse – Impugned judgment cannot be sustained in law and is set aside – Bail granted to respondent no. 2 cancelled. [Paras 11-19] Case Law Cited Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [2022] 4 SCR 1 : (2022) 8 SCC 559; State of U.P. v Sonu Kushwaha [2023] 10 SCR 993 : Criminal Appeal No. 1633 of 2023 dated 05.07.2023; Ramji Lal Bairwa and Another v. State of Rajasthan and Others, 2024 INSC 846 : [2024] 11 SCR 641; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar and Another [2019] 14 SCR 529 : (2020) 2 SCC 118; Arjun Jalba Ichke v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 268 of 2025 dated 17.01.2025; Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu @ Depak and Another [2023] 11 SCR 469 : (2023) 13 SCC 549; Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2022] 10 SCR 351 : (2022) 10 SCC 51; Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 : [2024]
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.