he Allahabad High Court has set aside an anticipatory bail order passed in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), after finding that the victim/informant was not given notice or an opportunity to be heard before bail was granted.
Justice Vivek Kumar Singh held that compliance with the statutory safeguards protecting a child and the victim’s right to participate cannot be bypassed while considering anticipatory bail.
Background
The matter arose from Case Crime No. 45 of 2023 registered at Police Station Anoop Shahar, Bulandshahar. An FIR was lodged on February 6, 2023, alleging sexual assault upon a minor. After investigation, the police submitted a final report.
The informant thereafter filed a protest petition, which was allowed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bulandshahar, on February 14, 2025. The matter was treated as a complaint case, and after considering the evidence produced by the informant, the court summoned the accused on October 15, 2025.
The accused subsequently applied for anticipatory bail, which was granted on January 17, 2026. However, the High Court found that no notice had been issued to the victim or her guardian before the application was heard.
The High Court examined the POCSO Act and the POCSO Rules, 2020, particularly the provisions requiring the child and the child's parent, guardian or support person to be informed about court proceedings and the bail status of an accused.
The Court also relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu, emphasising the victim's right to participate in criminal proceedings.
The Court observed:
"Needless to say that the anticipatory bail application shall be decided on merits, only after giving the adequate opportunity of hearing to the victim or his/her guardian. If the victim is unable to engage the services of a private counsel, it shall be obligatory upon the Court to provide him/her a legal aid counsel with adequate experience in the criminal law at the State expenses."
The Court further rejected the argument that bail could not be cancelled in the absence of post-bail misconduct. It distinguished cancellation for subsequent misuse of bail from setting aside an order affected by a serious procedural illegality.
The High Court held that the anticipatory bail order dated January 17, 2026, was not sustainable because the victim/informant had been denied the required opportunity of hearing.
It accordingly allowed the application and set aside the anticipatory bail order. The matter was remanded to the Special Judge, who was directed to restore the anticipatory bail application, issue proper notice to the victim/informant, allow reasonable time for objections, and decide the application afresh after hearing the victim and the State.
The Court also granted the accused protection from coercive action for six weeks while the fresh bail proceedings were to be considered.
Case Details
Case Title: Veer Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others
Case Number: Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Cancellation Application No. 45 of 2026
Judge: Justice Vivek Kumar Singh
Decision Date: September 29, 2026
