The Allahabad High Court has ruled that POCSO victims must be heard before courts grant anticipatory bail to the accused.
What Did the Allahabad High Court Rule?
The Allahabad High Court has held that granting anticipatory bail to an accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act without notifying the victim or providing an opportunity to be heard is legally invalid.
Justice Vivek Kumar Singh observed that issuing notice and hearing the victim or informant is a mandatory statutory requirement under the POCSO Act, read with the POCSO Rules, 2020.
The court held that an anticipatory bail order passed without complying with this requirement is void from the outset and suffers from a jurisdictional defect. The ruling came in Veer Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others, involving a challenge to anticipatory bail granted to two accused.
FCRF Launches CP-FRM to Build India’s Next Generation of Fraud Risk Professionals
Why Was the Anticipatory Bail Order Challenged?
The proceedings arose from a complaint seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by the Special Judge under the POCSO Act in Bulandshahr.
The case originated from an FIR registered in February 2023. On January 17, 2026, the trial court granted anticipatory bail to two accused without issuing notice to the victim or informant. The complainant subsequently approached the High Court, challenging the order on the ground that the mandatory opportunity of hearing had been denied.
The accused opposed the application, arguing that bail already granted could not be cancelled without allegations of subsequent misconduct, interference with evidence or threats to witnesses.
However, the High Court rejected this argument and distinguished between cancelling bail because of later developments and setting aside an order affected by a fundamental procedural illegality.
Why Is Hearing the Victim Mandatory?
The High Court emphasised that the right of a victim to participate in criminal proceedings extends to bail hearings.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra, the court reaffirmed that victims have a statutory right to participate in proceedings from the investigation stage through trial. Justice Singh observed that an order granting anticipatory bail in direct violation of a mandatory statutory requirement and the principles of natural justice cannot stand.
The court clarified that such an order can be set aside solely because of the procedural violation, regardless of whether the accused subsequently misused the liberty granted.
The distinction is significant because the absence of alleged misconduct after bail does not cure an order passed without fulfilling mandatory legal requirements.
What Directions Did the Court Issue?
The High Court set aside the anticipatory bail order and sent the matter back to the trial court for fresh consideration.
It directed the trial court to issue proper notice to the victim or informant and provide reasonable time for filing objections before deciding the bail applications again. To prevent hardship during the reconsideration process, the High Court granted the accused interim protection from coercive action for six weeks.
The court also directed the Registrar General to circulate the judgment to all special POCSO courts across Uttar Pradesh.
The420 Insight
The ruling reinforces the requirement that victims must receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before anticipatory bail is granted in POCSO cases. It also clarifies that procedural safeguards cannot be overlooked merely because no subsequent misuse of bail has been alleged.
Follow for daily updates on cybercrime, corporate fraud, DFIR, hacking, investigations, and digital forensics
