The Supreme Court of India.
Credit: iStock Photo
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday said the likelihood of evidence tampering or influencing witnesses after grant of bail in offences involving sexual assault against children is a legitimate and grave concern.
A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and R Mahdevan made the observations as it cancelled the bail granted by the Allahabad High Court to a youth from Shamli in Uttar Pradesh accused of repeated penetrative sexual assault under armed intimidation of a minor, and recording the act for the purpose of blackmail.
"The safety of the victim and the need to preserve the purity of the trial process assume paramount importance," the top court said.
While assessing a bail application, the court is duty-bound to have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence and the material collected during investigation.
"It is equally well settled that while bail is not to be refused mechanically, it must not be granted on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring material evidence.
"Where an order granting bail is founded on an incorrect appreciation of facts or suffers from material omissions or where it results in miscarriage of justice, this court is empowered to interfere," it said.
It added that the court is conscious of the fact that the POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) Act is a beneficial legislation enacted to protect children from sexual offences and that proceedings under the law warrant prompt and sensitive handling.
"This court has consistently emphasised the need for expeditious disposal of POCSO cases. At the same time, it is equally imperative that prosecutions must be subjected to careful judicial scrutiny so as to ensure that the process of law is not rendered oppressive," it said.
The court directed the trial court to give priority to the present case and conclude the trial in accordance with law expeditiously.
Justice Mahadevan, who penned the verdict said in the present case, said the grant of bail by the high court is vitiated by material misdirection and non-consideration of relevant factors rendering the same manifestly perverse.
"The offences alleged in the present case are heinous and grave involving repeated 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," it said.
Pointing to the flaws in the high court order, the bench said it failed to take into account the nature and gravity of the offences and the statutory rigour under the provisions of the POCSO Act.
"The 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," it said.
It set aside the April 9, 2025 order of the high court granting bail to the accused and directed him to surrender before court within two weeks.