Anticipatory bail granted without hearing the POCSO victim is void ab initio and cannot stand, the Allahabad High Court has held, stressing that notice and a hearing to the victim or informant is a mandatory statutory requirement.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has set aside an order of the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bulandshahar, granting anticipatory bail to two accused, after finding that the first informant was never given notice or a hearing before the order was passed on January 17, 2026. The case arises from an FIR of 2023 registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, in which the allegations against the accused are untested [Informant v. State of U.P. and Others].
Justice Vivek Kumar Singh allowed an anticipatory bail cancellation application filed by the informant, remitted the bail plea to the trial court for a fresh decision, and granted the accused six weeks of protection from coercive action.
The case
The informant sought cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the two accused by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bulandshahar, on January 17, 2026. The informant’s case was that the bail application was decided without any notice to the victim side. The accused argued that bail once granted can be cancelled only for misuse of liberty, such as tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses.
In reply to the High Court, the trial court admitted that no notice was issued to the informant before the order of January 17, 2026. The High Court recorded that the notice dated January 16, 2026 was silent on how the informant was to be informed, and observed that it appeared the informant was not duly informed by the police authority.
What the Court said
Rejecting the contention that bail can be cancelled only on post-bail misconduct, Justice Singh held that an order passed in breach of a mandatory statutory command and of natural justice stands on a different footing:
“When an order granting pre-arrest bail is passed in direct contravention of a mandatory statutory command and in violation of the principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem), such an order is void ab initio and suffers from a jurisdictional error. It is liable to be set aside on this ground alone irrespective of whether the accused has misused the liberty after the order.”
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra [(2022) 9 SCC 321], which affirmed the victim’s right to a fair and effective hearing at the time bail is granted, and on the POCSO Act and the POCSO Rules, 2020, which provide for the child’s participation and legal assistance.
On the manner of hearing, the Court laid down that the victim cannot be an afterthought in an anticipatory bail proceeding:
“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 answered in the affirmative the question whether any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the victim or her guardian before the impugned order was passed, and held that none was.
The directions
- The order of January 17, 2026 passed in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 98 of 2026 is set aside.
- The trial court shall restore the application to its original number and issue proper notice to the first informant, giving reasonable time to file objections.
- After a fair and effective hearing of the informant and the State, the trial court shall decide the application afresh on its own merits, uninfluenced by any observation in the earlier order or in this judgment.
- The accused are granted protection for six weeks, during which no coercive action shall be taken against them.
- The Registrar General is requested to circulate the judgment to all Special Judges (POCSO Act) in Uttar Pradesh.
The allegations in the underlying FIR are untested. The High Court has expressed no view on the merits of the case against the accused, who are presumed innocent, and the trial court will decide the bail plea afresh.
Why the order matters
The ruling treats the victim’s hearing in POCSO bail proceedings as a condition of jurisdiction and not a procedural courtesy. An anticipatory bail order passed without notice to the victim side can be set aside on that ground alone, without proof that the accused misused the liberty, which departs from the usual test for cancelling bail.
By asking the Registrar General to circulate the judgment to every POCSO Special Judge in Uttar Pradesh, and by requiring legal aid counsel at State expense where the victim cannot afford one, the Court has put trial courts on notice that notice to the victim and a real hearing must precede any pre-arrest bail order.
Case Title: Informant v. State of U.P. and Others [Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Cancellation Application No. 45 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Vivek Kumar Singh, Allahabad High Court
Date of Judgment: September 29, 2026
Appearances: Advocate Kanchan Chaudhary for the applicant-informant; Advocate Pankaj Kumar Tiwari, holding brief for Advocate Neeraj Tripathi, for the accused; Additional Government Advocate for the State
If a child needs help or protection, CHILDLINE 1098 (toll-free, 24×7) can be reached from anywhere in India.