The Allahabad High Court recently held that an order granting anticipatory bail to accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) without issuing notice or affording an opportunity of hearing to the victim is void ab initio and suffers from a jurisdictional defect [Veer Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others].

Justice Vivek Kumar Singh observed that issuing notice and hearing the victim or informant is a mandatory statutory command under the POCSO Act read with Rules of the POCSO Rules, 2020.

The Court was hearing a plea moved by a complainant seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to two accused by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bulandshahar, in a case arising out of an FIR lodged in February 2023. The trial court had granted pre-arrest bail on January 17, 2026, without issuing notice to the victim or informant.

The accused opposed the plea, arguing that bail once granted cannot be cancelled without allegations of post-bail misconduct, tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses.

The High Court rejected the argument. It clarified the distinction between cancelling bail for supervening circumstances and setting it aside for patent procedural illegality.

"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 held.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra, the Bench reaffirmed that a victim has an unbridled statutory right to participate in proceedings from the stage of investigation until trial, including bail hearings.

Consequently, the Court set aside the bail order and remanded the matter to the trial court to decide the plea afresh after issuing proper notice and granting reasonable time to file objections.

To prevent hardship, the Court granted the accused interim protection from coercive action for six weeks.

It also directed the Registrar General of the High Court to circulate the judgment to all special POCSO courts across Uttar Pradesh.

Advocate Kanchan Chaudhary appeared for the complainant.

Advocates Pankaj Kumar Tiwari and Neeraj Tripathi represented the accused.

The Additional Government Advocate appeared for the State.

[Read Judgment]