The Calcutta High Court has suspended a trial court’s order granting bail to an accused in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The bench, led by Justice Bivas Pattanayak, observed that the victim's right to be heard at the stage of bail cannot be ignored.
Background
The matter arose after the trial court on June 9, 2025, granted bail to the accused (opposite party no. 2) without informing the victim or her representative.
Read also:- Rajasthan High Court Seeks Bar Council's Response on Advocate's Certificate of Practice Dispute
This prompted the petitioner, represented by advocate Kaustav Bagchi, to move the High Court seeking cancellation of the bail order. The plea was filed under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 439(2) of the old Code of Criminal Procedure.
Bagchi argued that it was a settled principle of law that victims of sexual offences must be given a chance to oppose bail.
"The trial court bypassed this requirement, and that makes the order itself perverse," he told the court.
Read also:- Supreme Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail to Rajkumar Jain in SC/ST Atrocities Case from Maharashtra
He cited several precedents, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra (2022), where the victim's participation rights in bail hearings were clearly affirmed.
Court's Observations
The State government supported the petitioner's stand, noting that the trial court should have ensured the victim's presence during the bail hearing.
However, counsel for the accused, Debasis Kar, countered that cancellation of bail and setting aside a bail order are distinct. He argued that bail can only be revoked if the accused misuses liberty after release - for instance, by threatening witnesses or tampering with evidence. According to him, there was no such allegation in this case.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Quashes Demand for Higher Compounding Charges in TDS Default Case of Ex-Hotel Director
He further stressed that under Rule 4 of the POCSO Rules, 2020, it is the police's duty to keep the victim informed, not the accused's responsibility.
Justice Pattanayak disagreed with this reasoning. Referring to Section 483(2) of the BNSS, he said the law makes the victim’s presence obligatory in bail hearings involving sexual offences against minors.
He also quoted from Jagjeet Singh:
"Victims certainly cannot be expected to be sitting on the fence and watching the proceedings from afar, especially when they may have legitimate grievances."
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Declines Substitution Plea in Long-Running Partition Dispute Among Dey Family Members
The bench made it clear that in cases involving minors, the trial court must notify the victim or informant before deciding on bail, otherwise the right to participate becomes "illusory."
Decision
Holding that the trial court failed to secure the victim's participation, the High Court suspended the bail order of June 9 for three weeks. The accused has been directed to surrender before the trial court on September 11, 2025, and apply afresh for bail.
The Judge clarified that the merits of the case were left untouched and would be decided independently by the trial court. Importantly, the victim or her representative must be present at the next hearing, and the public prosecutor has been tasked with producing the case diary.
The matter will return to the High Court on September 18 for further proceedings.
