Cancelling anticipatory bail granted to two persons accused in a POCSO case by a trial court, the Allahabad High Court has directed all the courts of Special Judge (POCSO Act) in Uttar Pradesh to decide the anticipatory bail application 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 directed.A single bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh, in its order dated September 29, observed, “The learned trial court completely overlooked the mandatory requirement of issuing notice to the victim/informant before considering the anticipatory bail application under the POCSO Act. This failure has caused grave prejudice to the victim depriving her of the right to present material facts, gravity of offence and apprehensions regarding safety.”Also Read | Create fear in miscreants: Supreme Court on crime against womenThe bench stated in its order, “…no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the victim or her guardian before passing the impugned order. The statutory provision has been violated by the court concerned and, therefore, such kind of order is not sustainable in the law.”The case & trial court proceedingsA case was lodged on February 6, 2023, against two accused in Bulandshahr district on charges of a minor’s molestation, causing hurt, criminal intimidation, and under sections of the POCSO Act. The victim’s family approached the High Court seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the two accused by the Special Judge (POCSO Act) on January 17 this year.The police had filed a closure report in the case, but the complainant had opposed the police report which was allowed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act) court in February 2025. The case was treated as a complaint case in the court, which had directed the complainant to produce evidence of charges levelled against the two accused. The complainant produced witnesses, and the court, after considering the material on record, summoned the two accused in October 2025 to face trial on all the charges earlier levelled in the FIR.Both the accused, thereafter, filed anticipatory bail application before the trial court and were granted bail.High Court proceedingsStory continues below this adThe High Court bench observed in its order that the trial court order reflects that no notice to the informant/victim was ever issued by the Special Judge (POCSO Act) before granting bail to the accused.“Aggrieved by the complete denial of the statutory right of the audience, the complainant has approached this court seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail order on the ground of fundamental procedural illegality and violation of statutory mandates under the POCSO Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure/BNSS.”While hearing the application, the High Court sought an explanation from the trial court as to whether any notice was issued before passing the anticipatory bail order or any opportunity of hearing was provided to the victim/informant.In response, the trial court admitted that no notice was issued before passing the final order of anticipatory bail. It mentioned that the complainant was informed about the pending bail applications and a copy of police notice attached with the reply stated the complainant was informed on telephone. This notice, bearing no signature of the informant or the victim, does not mention who received the call or how the notice was served upon the informant.Court cancels bail to accusedStory continues below this adIn the High Court, the counsel for the accused argued that the bail cannot be cancelled without proof of post-bail misconduct.“This Court finds this argument misconceived. There is a clear legal distinction between cancellation of bail due to supervening circumstances such as tampering with evidence or breaching conditions and setting aside the order granting bail on account of perversity, non-application of mind, or 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.”“In view of the foregoing analysis, this court upholds that the order passed by the trial court, suffers from manifest illegality and procedural irregularity having been passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the first informant/victim in violation of statutory provisions and principle of natural justice.Consequently, the court ordered to set aside/cancel the order passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), in Anticipatory Bail Application,” the High Court held.Story continues below this adThe bench of Justice Singh ordered that the matter be remanded back to the trial court with the directions to restore the anticipatory bail application to its original number, issue proper notice to the first informant/victim, giving reasonable time to file objections/counter affidavit, if any.The High Court also directed that after affording a fair and effective opportunity of hearing to the first informant/victim as well as the State, the trial court shall decide the anticipatory bail application afresh on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observation made in the earlier order or this judgment.The bench, meanwhile, granted protection to the accused persons for a period of six weeks with a relief that no coercive action shall be taken against them during this time, within which period the trial court shall make all endeavours to hear and decide the restored anticipatory bail application.