Bail cannot be cancelled without a hearing and cogent proof of deliberate breach.

The petitioner faced charges under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 64(2)(I), 64(2)(M) and 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, arising from the alleged abduction and sexual assault of a victim aged 16 years and one month.

During the victim’s evidence, she supported the prosecution in examination-in-chief but resiled during cross-examination.

The Special POCSO Court cancelled the petitioner’s bail, finding that he had breached bail conditions by contacting or influencing the victim; it relied on CCTV footage and the circumstances surrounding an alleged settlement.

The petitioner challenged the cancellation order under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, contending that he was not present during the relevant conversation and had not been given an opportunity to respond.

1. Whether the Special POCSO Court could cancel the petitioner’s bail without affording him an opportunity to be heard and without following the requisite procedure.

2. Whether the circumstances recorded by the Special POCSO Court established sufficient grounds to cancel bail for breach of its conditions.

The petitioner invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to quash the impugned order.

The Court applied the principles that cancellation of bail is a serious measure affecting personal liberty; it must be exercised with care and on cogent and sufficient grounds, not mechanically or merely on conjecture. The accused must be afforded an adequate opportunity to answer allegations of breach, consistently with natural justice and due process.

The cancellation order rested on the trial judge’s observations that the victim and the advocates were conversing about a settlement, the victim later confirmed that a settlement had been reached, and CCTV footage supported the court’s conclusion.

However, the petitioner was not shown to have been present during the conversation, and neither the victim nor the complainant alleged that he had breached his bail conditions or attempted to influence or contact the victim.

No application alleging such a breach had been filed by the State or the prosecutrix. The High Court therefore found that the inference of breach, without a hearing or adequate procedure, did not provide a sufficient basis for cancelling bail.

It also observed that the trial judge’s personal intervention in directing the victim to attend the courtroom ought to have been avoided, while emphasizing judicial detachment and procedural care.

It quashed and set aside the impugned order and directed the petitioner’s release on bail, unless his custody was required in another case or for another lawful purpose.

The Court further directed that the trial court exercise due care and follow the prescribed procedure when considering bail cancellation, and made the Rule absolute.