Bail jurisprudence usually asks when bail can be cancelled for what the accused did after release. The Allahabad High Court's order of 29 September 2026 in Veer Singh v. State of U.P. answers a different question: what happens when the grant itself was procedurally stillborn. The Special Judge (POCSO), Bulandshahr had granted anticipatory bail to two accused without any notice to the minor victim or her guardian. The High Court set that order aside not for anything the accused did, but because an order passed in breach of a mandatory hearing requirement and natural justice is void from inception.
The facts
The prosecution arises from Case Crime No. 45 of 2023, Police Station Anoop Shahar, district Bulandshahr, under Sections 74, 115(2), 351(1) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 7/8 of the POCSO Act, 2012 — allegations of sexual assault on a minor. On 17 January 2026, the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bulandshahr allowed Anticipatory Bail Application No. 98 of 2026 and granted pre-arrest bail to two accused. The victim's side then moved the High Court for cancellation.
The record before Justice Vivek Kumar Singh was stark. The trial court's own report dated 22 September 2026 admitted that no notice had been issued to the victim before the order was passed. A police notice dated 16 January 2026 — a day before the order — was unsigned, and did not disclose how, if at all, the informant was actually told that the application was pending. The Court found that the informant was never duly informed.
Void from inception, not cancelled for misconduct
Cancellation for misconduct
Classic bail cancellation looks at supervening conduct: threatening witnesses, absconding, repeat offending. The grant was lawful; the accused forfeited it.
Setting aside an illegal grant
Here the defect preceded the order. A grant made in breach of a mandatory hearing requirement is void ab initio — a jurisdictional error that can be corrected without any post-bail misconduct at all.
The accused argued the orthodox line: bail once granted cannot be cancelled absent misuse. The Court rejected it, holding that an order passed in violation of a mandatory statutory command and of natural justice suffers from a jurisdictional error and is void ab initio, and that such patent procedural illegality is by itself a ground to set the order aside. The legal foundation is twofold: the POCSO Rules, 2020 — Rules 4(13) to 4(15), which operationalise the victim's right to information and participation — and Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra, (2022) 9 SCC 321, where the Supreme Court held that a victim has a right to be heard at every step of the criminal process, including at the stage of bail.
The directions
The order of 17 January 2026 was set aside and the anticipatory bail application restored to its original number.
The trial court must issue proper notice to the first informant/victim, allowing reasonable time for objections or a counter affidavit.
The application is to be decided afresh on merits, after hearing the informant/victim and the State, uninfluenced by the earlier order.
The accused received protection from coercive action for six weeks, within which the trial court should endeavour to decide the restored application.
Legal aid counsel is to be provided at State expense if the victim cannot engage one, and the order is to be circulated to all POCSO Special Judges in Uttar Pradesh.
Why the decision matters beyond Uttar Pradesh
Anticipatory bail in POCSO matters is already exceptional terrain: the offence is grave, statutory presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 operate at trial, and several High Courts examine such applications with pronounced caution. This order adds a procedural dimension with sharp practical consequences on both sides of the aisle. For the defence, an anticipatory bail order obtained without victim notice is a fragile shield — it can be undone months later without any allegation of misuse, as happened here. Ensuring on the record that notice was issued and the victim heard is therefore not a formality but self-protection. For victims and informants, the decision confirms a direct remedy: an application to the High Court to set aside a bail order passed behind their back, without having to prove any supervening misconduct.
The balance the Court struck deserves notice. It did not simply strip the accused of protection: it restored the application, mandated a proper hearing, and shielded the accused for six weeks. The victim's right to be heard was vindicated without converting a procedural default into automatic custody — the question of pre-arrest bail itself remains open, to be decided lawfully.
Under the BNSS, anticipatory bail continues under Section 482 (formerly Section 438 CrPC), and the special procedural safeguards of the POCSO Act and its Rules operate on top of it. The lesson of Veer Singh is that those safeguards are not decorative: an order that skips them does not merely risk appeal — in law, it was never validly made.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does a POCSO victim have to be heard before anticipatory bail is granted?
Yes. The POCSO Rules, 2020 — particularly Rules 4(13) to 4(15) — and the Supreme Court's decision in Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra, (2022) 9 SCC 321, recognise the victim's right to be heard at every stage, including bail. Courts across the country, including the Delhi High Court, insist on notice to the victim or informant before bail or anticipatory bail is decided in POCSO matters.
Is proof of misuse of bail necessary to cancel a bail order?
Not in this category. Cancellation for supervening misconduct is one route; setting aside an order that was illegal when passed is another. The Allahabad High Court held that where the grant itself violates a mandatory statutory command — here, the victim's right of hearing — the order is void ab initio and can be set aside on that ground alone, without any post-bail misconduct.
What happened to the accused's protection in this case?
The High Court restored the anticipatory bail application for fresh decision after proper notice to the victim and the State, and protected the accused from coercive action for six weeks so that the restored application could be decided on its own merits, uninfluenced by the earlier order.
Does this principle apply in Delhi?
The requirement of notice to and hearing of the victim in POCSO bail matters is grounded in the POCSO Rules, 2020 and Supreme Court authority, both of which apply nationally. Delhi courts routinely issue notice to the victim through the Investigating Officer and hear her counsel or support person before deciding bail applications under the POCSO Act.