REDACTED vs STATE OF KERALA

Crl.M.C.516/2026
1
2026:KER:17222
C.R.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
TH
THURSDAY, THE 26 DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 516 OF 2026
CRIME NO.2021/2025 OF Kottayam East Police Station, Kottayam
CRMP NO.1 OF 2026 OF DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT/RENT
CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM
PETITIONER(S)/VICTIMS GUARDIAN
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
BY ADVS.
SHRI.C.S.MANILAL
SRI.S.NIDHEESH
RESPONDENTS/STATE & ACCUSED
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031
2 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX
BY ADVS.
SMT.USHA BABY
SMT.K.G.RAJI
PP. SMT. ANIMA.M
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.2.2026, THE COURT ON 26.02.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.M.C.516/2026
2
2026:KER:17222
C.R.
ORDER
th
Dated : 26 February, 2025
The father of the victim involved in crime No.2021 of 2025 of
Kottayam East police station filed this Crl.M.C under Section 528 BNSS
praying for setting aside Annexure-A3 bail order passed by the Sessions Judge,
nd
Kottayam, granting bail to the accused/2 respondent, mainly on the ground
that, before granting bail to the accused, no notice was given to the victim.
2. The offences involved in crime No.2021 of 2025 of Kottayam
East police station are under Section 351 BNS and Section 4(2), 3(d), 8 r/w 7
of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (PoCSO Act). The
nd
allegation against the 2 respondent is that on 14.11.2025 at about 2.15 p.m,
he trespassed into the residence of the victim who was a minor boy aged 14
and committed penetrative sexual assault upon him and intimidated him not to
nd
disclose about the same to others. From the records it appears that the 2
respondent was arrested by the police on 15.11.2025 and as per Annexure-A3
order, he was released on bail.
3. From Annexure-A3 order, it is not clear as to whether any notice
nd
was given to the victim, before granting bail to the 2 respondent. In the above
circumstances, the learned Public Prosecutor was directed to ascertain whether
any such notice was given to the victim, before passing Annexure-A3 order.
The learned Public Prosecutor, upon instructions, submitted that no such notice

Crl.M.C.516/2026
3
2026:KER:17222
was given to the victim.
4. Relying upon Section 40 of the PoCSO Act, Rule 4 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2020 (PoCSO Rules,
2020) as well as sub-section (2) of Section 483 BNSS, the learned counsel for
the petitioner would argue that before granting bail, the learned Sessions Judge
was bound to hear the victim also. According to him, since no such
opportunity was given in this case, Annexure-A3 bail order is liable to be set
aside. He has also relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in
Arjun Kishanrao Maige v. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2021 KHC
3867 and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in Jagjeet Singh and
Others v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu and Another, 2022 (3) KHC 449, in
support of his argument.
nd
5. The petition was strongly opposed by the 2 respondent. In the
objection he contends that he was released on bail only about two months after
the arrest. The learned counsel would also submit that at the time of hearing
the bail application, the mother of the victim was present in the Court.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the mother of the victim is
working as an advocate clerk and hence according to him, for the mere reason
that the mother of the victim attended the court in her capacity as an advocate
clerk, the duty of the court to hear the victim cannot be dispensed with. In the
objection he further contends that there was property dispute with the
petitioner. It was further contended that he is a plumber by profession. His

Crl.M.C.516/2026
4
2026:KER:17222
service was utilised by the petitioner for 7 days and no wages was paid.
According to him, with respect to the said issue there was wordy altercation
which led to registration of this false case against him.
6. Section 40 of the PoCSO Act reads as follows :-
“Right of child to take assistance of legal practitioner.—Subject to the
proviso to section 301 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of
1974)the family or the guardian of the child shall be entitled to the
assistance of a legal counsel of their choice for any offence under this
Act:
Provided that if the family or the guardian of the child are unable to
afford a legal counsel, the Legal Services Authority shall provide a
lawyer to them.”
7. Rule 4 (13), (14) and (15) of the PoCSO Rules, 2020
reads as follows :
4. Procedure regarding care and protection of child.
......
(13) It shall be the responsibility of the SJPU, or the local police to keep
the child and child's parent or guardian or other person in whom the
child has trust and confidence, and where a support person has been
assigned, such person, informed about the developments, including the
arrest of the accused, applications filed and other court proceedings.
(14) SJPU or the local police shall also inform the child and child's
parents or guardian or other person in whom the child has trust and
confidence about their entitlements and services available to them under
the Act or any other law for the time being applicable as per Form-A. It
shall also complete the Preliminary Assessment Report in Form B within
24 hours of the registration of the First Information Report and submit it

Crl.M.C.516/2026
5
2026:KER:17222
to the CWC.
(15) The information to be provided by the SJPU, local police, or support
person, to the child and child's parents or guardian or other person in
whom the child has trust and confidence, includes but is not limited to
the following:-
(i) the availability of public and private emergency and crisis services;
(ii) the procedural steps involved in a criminal prosecution;
(iii) the availability of victim's compensation benefits;
(iv) the status of the investigation of the crime, to the extent it is
appropriate to inform the victim and to the extent that it will not interfere
with the investigation;
(v) the arrest of a suspected offender;
(vi) the filing of charges against a suspected offender;
(vii) the schedule of court proceedings that the child is either required to
attend or is entitled to attend;
(viii) the bail, release or detention status of an offender or suspected
offender;
(ix) the rendering of a verdict after trial; and
(x) the sentence imposed on an offender.
8. Sub-section (2) of Section 483 BNSS reads as follows :
483. Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail.
(1).............
(2) The presence of the informant or any person authorised by him shall
be obligatory at the time of hearing of the application for bail to the
person under section 65 or sub-section (2) of section 70 of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Crl.M.C.516/2026
6
2026:KER:17222
9. After analyzing Section 40 of the PoCSO Act, Rule 4 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2020 (PoCSO Rules,
2020) as well as sub-section (2) of Section 483 BNSS, the Bombay High
Court in Arjun Kishanrao Maige (supra) held in paragraph 12 to 17 as
follows :
12. The PoCSO Act is a special legislation enacted by the Parliament
with an object to provide a statutory shield to protect children from the
offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment and pornography and
provide for establishment of Special Courts for trial of such offences. The
scheme of this legislation is clear from the different Chapters and its
contents. Chapter II deals with sexual offences against children which
are differently categorized and for punishment of such offences. Chapter
III provides for using child for pornographic purposes and punishment
therefor. Chapter IV deals with abetment and attempt to commit an
offence. Chapter V provides for the procedure for reporting of cases.
Chapter VI contains the provisions in relation to procedures for
recording statement of the child. Chapter VII provides for Special Courts
to be designated for providing speedy trial for offences falling under such
legislation; provisions on presumption as to certain offences;
presumption of culpable mental state, as also application of the Cr.P.C to
the proceedings before a Special Court. Chapter VIII provides for the
procedure and powers of Special Courts and recording of evidence.
Chapter IX provides for miscellaneous provisions as to guidelines for
child to take assistance of experts etc. (S.39); right to child to take
assistance of legal practitioner (S.40).
13. On a perusal of the scheme of the said legislation, it is clear that
a robust mechanism recognizing the need to protect children from the
offences falling within the purview of this legislation and the method and
manner to deal judicially such offences, is prescribed as a part of the

Crl.M.C.516/2026
7
2026:KER:17222
administration of criminal justice.
14. Section 40 of the POSCO Act, falling under Chapter IX titled
"Miscellaneous Provisions", confers a right upon a child to take
assistance of a legal practitioner. It provides that the family or the
guardian of the child shall be entitled to the assistance of a legal counsel
"of their choice" for any offence under this Act, and as per the proviso, if
the family or the guardian of the child are unable to afford a legal
counsel "the Legal Services Authority" shall provide a lawyer to them.
From a bare reading of Section 40, it is limpid that it mandates
entitlement interalia conferred on the family or the guardian of the child
of the assistance of legal Counsel of their choice in regard to any
offences under the Act, and if the family or the guardian of the child are
unable to afford a legal counsel of their choice, it is mandatory and an
obligation of the 'Legal Service Authority', to provide a lawyer to them
from its panel. Such mandate of Section 40 is made procedurally effective
by framing of Rule 4(13), 4(14) and 4(15) of the POSCO Rules. Sub-rule
(13) provides that it shall be the responsibility of the SJPU or the local
police to keep the child and child's parent or guardian etc., informed
about the developments, including the arrest of the accused, applications
filed and other court proceedings. Sub-rule (14) provides that
information in relation to the services available to them under the Act or
any other law for time being in force as per Form-A, be provided for, as
also to complete the 'Preliminary Assessment Report' in Form B, within
24 hours of the registration of the First Information Report and submit it
to the Child Welfare Committee. Sub-rule (15) of Rule 4 postulates
information to be provided by the SJPU, local police, or support person
interalia to the child and child's parents or guardians and which includes
information as described under Clause (i) to (x) which speaks of the
variety of information interalia of availability of public and private
emergency and crisis service; the procedural steps involved in a criminal
prosecution; the availability of victim's compensation benefits; the status

Crl.M.C.516/2026
8
2026:KER:17222
of the investigation of the crime, to the extent it is appropriate to inform
the victim and to the extent not interfering with the investigation; the
arrest of a suspected offender; the filing of charges against a suspected
offender; the schedule of court proceedings that the child is either
required to attend or is entitled to attend; the bail, release or detention
status of an offender or suspected offender; rendering of a verdict after
trial; and the sentence imposed on an offender.
15. On a conjoint reading of Section 40 of the POCSO Act read with Rule
4 of the POSCO Rules the legislative mandate is that of complete
information to be made available, of all the proceedings and its progress
in relation to the offences under the said Act, to the parent or the
guardian of the child, with the sole object to safeguard the interest and
well being of the child at every stage of the judicial process, to give effect
to the mandate of Articles 15 and 39 of the Constitution. On behalf of the
petitioner, we have been shown several orders passed by the Courts
trying such offences. We see from such orders, that the concerned Courts
have completely overlooked the mandate of Section 40 of the POCSO Act
read with Rule 4 of the POCSO Rules.
16. Considering the avowed legislative intent of such provisions, it thus
cannot be countenanced, that when it comes to the administration of
criminal justice, the stakeholders who are concerned with the
investigation of such offences, as also the Special Courts dealing with the
proceedings under Act, overlook and/or not recognize and/or implement
the mandate of such solemn provisions.
17. In our opinion, the petitioner is correct in his contention, also
referring to the provisions of Section 439 of the Cr.P.C and the
amendment made thereto by incorporation of Sub-section (1A) [(by Act
22 of 2018) with effect from 21 April 2019] stipulating that " the
presence of the informant or any person authorised by him shall be
obligatory at the time of hearing of the application for bail to the person

Crl.M.C.516/2026
9
2026:KER:17222
under sub-section (3) of section 376 or section 376AB or section 376DA
or Section 376DB of the Indian Penal Code." It needs to be noted that
such provisions of the Indian Penal Code referring to sub-section (1A) of
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. are in relation to the offences under sub-
section (3) of Section 376 or Section 376AB or Section 376DA or Section
376 DB of the IPC which relate to children. We thus find ourselves in
agreement with the contention of the petitioner that akin to the offences
which fall under the Indian Penal Code as set out in sub- section (1A) of
Section 439 of Cr.P.C., with respect to applications for bail under the
POCSO Act, the presence of the informant or any person authorised by
him shall be made obligatory at the time of hearing of the application for
bail. This would certainly be in consonance with the object of Section
40 of the POCSO Act read with Rule 4(13) and 4(15) of the POCSO
Rules. To such extent, we also find ourselves, in agreement with the
directions of the Delhi High Court in its orders as noted above.
10. Thereafter, the Court proceeded to give the following directions
in paragraph 20 of the judgment :
20. We are thus of the clear opinion that the PoCSO Act read with
Rules 4(13) and 4(15) of the PoCSO Rules recognize a statutory
entitlement to the assistance of and representation by legal counsel for
the family or the guardian of the child and entitlement to be present and
to participate in proceedings in accordance with the said provision. As
a necessary corollary, there is also an entitlement of such persons to be
made aware of the filing of applications and the hearings scheduled on
such applications at the various stages of the proceedings. We are
accordingly inclined to dispose of the petition with the following
directions:-
(i) Notwithstanding the duty of the SJPU to intimate the child’s family
or guardian or the legal counsel under Rule 4 of the PoCSO Rules :

Crl.M.C.516/2026
10
2026:KER:17222
a. where an application is made before the Court on behalf of the
prosecution, it shall be the duty of the office of the public prosecutor to
issue notice of hearing of such application to the child’s family or as
the case may be, the guardian, and where a legal counsel on behalf of
the child is already on record, to such legal counsel, along with all
relevant documents and the record necessary for effective participation
in the proceedings;
b. when an application is made before the Court on behalf of the
accused, it shall be the duty of the accused to issue notice of hearing of
such application to the child’s family or as the case may be, the
guardian, and where a legal counsel on behalf of the child is already on
record, to such legal counsel, along with all relevant documents and the
record necessary for effective participation in the proceedings."
(ii) When an application is made on behalf of the prosecution, it shall
be the duty of the Police Officer to confirm to the relevant Court that
service of such application alongwith all relevant documents and the
record necessary for effective participation in the proceedings, and the
notice of hearing has been undertaken and completed along with proof
of service.
(iii) In the event, it has not been possible to serve the child’s family,
guardian or legal counsel, it shall be the duty of the SJPU to inform the
reasons in writing to the relevant court.
(iv) The appropriate Court, before proceeding to hear the application,
shall ascertain the status of service of notice, and if it is found that
notice has not been issued, the Court may make such reasoned order as
it deems fit to secure the ends of justice, taking into account any
emergent circumstances that warrant dealing with the application in
the absence of the child’s family or guardian or legal counsel.

Crl.M.C.516/2026
11
2026:KER:17222
(v) In the event despite issuance of notice, the child’s family,
guardian or legal counsel, does not attend the hearing, the Court may
proceed further without the presence of such noticee, or issue a fresh
notice, as the Court may deem fit and proper, considering the interest of
justice.
(vi) When the proceedings under the would also relate to an offence
against Sections 376(3), 376-AB, 376-DA or 376-DB of the Indian
Penal Code, the notice to the victim shall be issued under Section
439(1-A) read with Rule 4(13) and 4(15).
(vii) This order shall be brought to the notice of all the Sessions Judges
and Special Court Judges in the State of Maharashtra.”
11. In the decision in Jagjeet Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court considered the question whether a ‘victim’, as defined under Section
2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is entitled to be heard at the
stage of adjudication of bail application of an accused. In the above case, the
bail application of the accused involving offences punishable under Sections
147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 326, r/w Sections 34 and 120B of IPC, as well as
Sections 3, 25 and 30 of the Arms Act was considered and allowed by the High
Court, without giving opportunity to the victims to oppose the bail application.
After analyzing the UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for the
Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, 1985, and also the law relating to the
victim's rights prevailing in different nations as well as various provisions of
law and precedents, the Apex Court held that in India also, the victim has the
right to be heard, while considering the bail application of an accused. Further,
after finding that the High Court has granted bail to the accused without

Crl.M.C.516/2026
12
2026:KER:17222
hearing the victim, his bail was cancelled and directed the High Court to
dispose of the bail application afresh, after affording opportunity of hearing to
the victim. In paragraph 16 to 25, the Apex Court held that:
“16. Until recently, criminal law had been viewed on a dimensional plane
wherein the Courts were required to adjudicate between the accused and
the State. The ‘victim’ — the de facto sufferer of a crime had no
participation in the adjudicatory process and was made to sit outside the
Court as a mute spectator. However, with the recognition that the ethos of
criminal justice dispensation to prevent and punish ‘crime’ had
surreptitiously turned its back on the ‘victim’, the jurisprudence with
respect to the rights of victims to be heard and to participate in criminal
proceedings began to positively evolve.
17. Internationally, the UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice
for the Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, 1985, which was adopted
vide the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 40/34, was a
landmark in boosting the pro-victim movement. The Declaration defined a
‘victim’ as someone who has suffered harm, physical or mental injury,
emotional suffering, economic loss, impairment of fundamental rights
through acts or omissions that are in violation of criminal laws operative
within a State, regardless of whether the perpetrator is identified,
apprehended, prosecuted or convicted, and regardless of the familial
relationship between the perpetrator and the ‘victim’. Other international
bodies, such as the European Union, also took great strides in granting
and protecting the rights of ‘victims’ through various Covenants. [The
position of a victim in the framework of Criminal Law and Procedure,
Council of Europe Committee of Ministers to Member States, 1985;
Strengthening victim's right in the EU communication from the
Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and
Social Committee and the Committee of the Reasons, European Union,

Crl.M.C.516/2026
13
2026:KER:17222
2011; Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the
Council establishing “Minimum Standards on the Rights, Support and
Protection of Victims of Crime, European Union, 2011]
18. Amongst other nations, the United States of America had also made
two enactments on the subject i.e. (i) The Victims of Crime Act, 1984
under which legal assistance is granted to the crime victims; and (ii) The
Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990. This was followed by
meaningful amendments, repeal and insertion of new provisions in both
the Statutes through an Act passed by the House of Representatives as well
as the Senate. In Australia, the Legislature has enacted South Australia
Victims of Crime Act, 2001. While in Canada there is the Canadian
Victims Bill of Rights. Most of these legislations have defined the ‘victim’
of a crime liberally and have conferred varied rights on such victims.
19. On the domestic front, recent amendments to the Cr.P.C. have
recognised a victim’s rights in the Indian criminal justice system. The
genesis of such rights lies in the 154 th Report of the Law Commission of
India, wherein, radical recommendations on the aspect of compensatory
justice to a victim under a compensation scheme were made. Thereafter, a
Committee on the Reforms of Criminal Justice System in its Report in
2003, suggested ways and means to develop a cohesive system in which
all parts are to work in coordination to achieve the common goal of
restoring the lost confidence of the people in the criminal justice system.
The Committee recommended the rights of the victim or his/her legal
representative “to be impleaded as a party in every criminal proceeding
where the charges punishable with seven years’ imprisonment or more”.
20. It was further recommended that the victim be armed with a right to be
represented by an advocate of his/her choice, and if he/she is not in a
position to afford the same, to provide an advocate at the State’s expense.
The victim’s right to participate in criminal trial and his/her right to know
the status of investigation, and take necessary steps, or to be heard at

Crl.M.C.516/2026
14
2026:KER:17222
every crucial stage of the criminal proceedings, including at the time of
grant or cancellation of bail, were also duly recognised by the Committee.
Repeated judicial intervention, coupled with the recommendations made
from time to time as briefly noticed above, prompted the Parliament to
bring into force the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008,
which not only inserted the definition of a ‘victim’ under Section 2 (wa) but
also statutorily recognised various rights of such victims at different
stages of trial.
21. It is pertinent to mention that the legislature has thoughtfully given a
wide and expansive meaning to the expression ‘victim’ which “means a
person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or
omission for which the accused person has been charged and the
expression “victim” includes his or her guardian or legal heir”
22. This Court, in Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) v. State of Karnataka
and Others, (2019) 2 SCC 752 while dealing with questions regarding a
victim’s right to file an appeal under section 372 of Cr.P.C, observed that
there was need to give adequate representation to victims in criminal
proceedings. The Court therein affirmed the victim’s right to file an appeal
against an order of acquittal. In Mallikarjun Kodagali, though the Court
was primarily concerned with a different legal issue, it will be fruitful in
the present context to take note of some of the observations made therein:
“3. What follows in a trial is often secondary victimisation through
repeated appearances in court in a hostile or a semi-hostile
environment in the courtroom. Till sometime back, secondary
victimisation was in the form of aggressive and intimidating cross-
examination, but a more humane interpretation of the provisions of the
Evidence Act, 1872 has made the trial a little less uncomfortable for
the victim of an offence, particularly the victim of a sexual crime. In
this regard, the judiciary has been proactive in ensuring that the rights
of victims are addressed, but a lot more needs to be done. Today, the
rights of an accused far outweigh the rights of the victim of an offence
in many respects. There needs to be some balancing of the concerns
and equalising their rights so that the criminal proceedings are fair to
both. [Girish Kumar Suneja v. CBI, (2017) 14 SCC 809 : (2018) 1
SCC (Cri) 202]….…
xxxxx xxx

Crl.M.C.516/2026
15
2026:KER:17222
8. The rights of victims, and indeed victimology, is an evolving
jurisprudence and it is more than appropriate to move forward in a
positive direction, rather than stand still or worse, take a step
backward. A voice has been given to victims of crime by Parliament
and the judiciary and that voice needs to be heard, and if not already
heard, it needs to be raised to a higher decibel so that it is clearly
heard.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
23. It cannot be gainsaid that the right of a victim under the amended
Cr.P.C. are substantive, enforceable, and are another facet of human
rights. The victim’s right, therefore, cannot be termed or construed
restrictively like a brutum fulmen. We reiterate that these rights are totally
independent, incomparable, and are not accessory or auxiliary to those of
the State under the Cr.P.C. The presence of ‘State’ in the proceedings,
therefore, does not tantamount to according a hearing to a ‘victim’ of the
crime.
24. A ‘victim’ within the meaning of Cr.P.C. cannot be asked to await the
commencement of trial for asserting his/her right to participate in the
proceedings. He/She has a legally vested right to be heard at every step
post the occurrence of an offence. Such a ‘victim’ has unbridled
participatory rights from the stage of investigation till the culmination of
the proceedings in an appeal or revision. We may hasten to clarify that
‘victim’ and ‘complainant/informant’ are two distinct connotations in
criminal jurisprudence. It is not always necessary that the
complainant/informant is also a ‘victim’, for even a stranger to the act of
crime can be an ‘informant’, and similarly, a ‘victim’ need not be the
complainant or informant of a felony.
25. The above stated enunciations are not to be conflated with certain
statutory provisions, such as those present in Special Acts like the
Scheduled Cast and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,
where there is a legal obligation to hear the victim at the time of granting
bail. Instead, what must be taken note of is that; First, the Indian
jurisprudence is constantly evolving, whereby, the right of victims to be
heard, especially in cases involving heinous crimes, is increasingly being

Crl.M.C.516/2026
16
2026:KER:17222
acknowledged; Second, where the victims themselves have come forward
to participate in a criminal proceeding, they must be accorded with an
opportunity of a fair and effective hearing. If the right to file an appeal
against acquittal, is not accompanied with the right to be heard at the time
of deciding a bail application, the same may result in grave miscarriage
of justice. Victims certainly cannot be expected to be sitting on the fence
and watching the proceedings from afar, especially when they may have
legitimate grievances. It is the solemn duty of a court to deliver justice
before the memory of an injustice eclipses.”
12. With regard to the cancellation of bail which was already
granted, in paragraph 41 the Apex court held that:
“41. We are, thus, of the view that this Court on account of the
factors like (i) irrelevant considerations having impacted the
impugned order granting bail; (ii) the High Court exceeding its
jurisdiction by touching upon the merits of the case; (iii) denial of
victims’ right to participate in the proceedings; and (iv) the tearing
hurry shown by the High Court in entertaining or granting bail to
the respondent/accused; can rightfully cancel the bail, without
depriving the Respondent/Accused of his legitimate right to seek
enlargement on bail on relevant considerations. “
13. In the light of Section 40 of the PoCSO Act, Rule 4 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2020 (PoCSO Rules,
2020) as well as sub-section (2) of Section 483 BNSS, as well as the
precedents referred above, it can be seen that the victim is entitled to be heard,
before granting bail to the accused, especially in serious and heinous offences.
In the instant case, the offences involved are under Section 351 BNS and

Crl.M.C.516/2026
17
2026:KER:17222
Section 4(2) r/w 3(d) and 8 r/w 7 of the PoCSO Act, which are very serious
and heinous in nature. Therefore, in this case the victim/petitioner was entitled
to be heard, before granting bail to the accused. Since the learned Sessions
Judge has not given notice to the victim and the victim was not heard before
passing Ext. A5 bail order, the same is liable to be set aside on that ground
alone. Therefore, I am not going into the merits of the bail application.
14. In the result, Exhibit A5 bail order passed by the Sessions judge
is set aside. Consequently, the bail bonds of the respondent/accused are
cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the learned Sessions judge,
within a period of seven days from today. The learned Sessions Judge is
directed to dispose of the bail application afresh, after giving adequate
opportunity of hearing to the victim as well, within a period of one month from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The Crl.M.C is allowed.
Sd/- C.Pratheep Kumar, Judge
Mrcs/23.2.26