In a significant ruling on bail jurisprudence under the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Gujarat High Court quashed the cancellation of bail granted to an accused in a POCSO case, holding that the power to cancel bail must be exercised only after affording the accused an opportunity to explain alleged breaches of bail conditions, and that mechanical reliance on CCTV footage without such hearing violates natural justice and procedural fairness.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Nareshji Rameshji Hariji Thakor (Morersiya), was accused in an FIR registered with Thara Police Station, District Banaskantha (First C.R. No. 11195051250381/2025) for abducting a 16-year-old victim. The charge-sheet led to the case being committed to the learned Special POCSO Court and registered as Special POCSO Case No. 44 of 2025. While on bail, the victim’s examination was scheduled for 21.09.2026. During cross-examination she resiled from her earlier statement, and the court, relying on CCTV footage, cancelled the petitioner’s bail on the same day, alleging breach of bail conditions (influencing witnesses and contacting the victim) and took him into custody.
Key Facts
- The FIR was registered with Thara Police Station, District Banaskantha (First C.R. No. 11195051250381/2025).
- Upon completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed for offences punishable under Sections 363 IPC, 64(2)(I), 64(2)(M) and 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as well as Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO).
- The case was committed to the learned Special POCSO Court and registered as Special POCSO Case No. 44 of 2025.
- The victim was examined below Exhibit 23 on 21.09.2026; she supported the prosecution in examination-in-chief but resiled during cross-examination.
- On the same date, the learned Special POCSO Court passed an order cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner, citing breach of Conditions Nos. 3 and 4 (not to influence witnesses and not to contact the victim) and reliance on CCTV footage.
- The petitioner was taken into custody by the Special POCSO Court on 21.09.2026 and remained in custody for approximately one month.
- The impugned bail-cancellation order is the subject of the present special criminal application for quashing.
Procedural History
- 21.09.2026: Victim’s examination; bail cancelled; petitioner taken into custody.
- Thereafter: Petitioner filed the present Special Criminal Application (Quashing) No. 15150 of 2026 before the Gujarat High Court seeking quashing of the bail-cancellation order, stay of its operation, release on bail, and dispensation with affidavit.
- 16.10.2026: Judgment delivered by Hon’ble Mrs. Justice M. K. Thakker, quashing the impugned order and directing release on bail if custody not required elsewhere.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner Learned Advocates Mr. Harshal S. Patel and Mr. Dipen F. Chaudhari submitted that the petitioner was not present when the advocates for the victim and the accused were conversing with the victim; consequently, no breach of bail conditions occurred. They argued that the learned Special POCSO Court cancelled bail without affording the petitioner an opportunity to explain the allegations, violating the principles of natural justice and the procedural requirements of Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. They relied on the proposition that bail cancellation must be exercised only upon cogent and sufficient grounds and after a hearing.
For the Respondent (State) Learned APP Ms. Divyangna Jhala submitted that appropriate orders may be passed, defending the cancellation on the ground that the petitioner had influenced witnesses and contacted the victim, as evidenced by CCTV footage, and that the impugned order was a proper exercise of judicial discretion.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought: "(A) Admission and allowance of the application;" "(B) Exercise of discretion under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash and set aside the impugned bail-cancellation order passed by the learned Special POCSO Judge and 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Deesa in Special POCSO Case No. 44/2025 and release the applicant on bail in the interest of justice;" "(C) Pending admission and final disposal, stay of implementation and operation of the impugned order;" "(D) Dispensation with the affidavit of the applicant as he is in jail;" "(E) Such other and further relief as may be just, fit and expedient in the facts and circumstances."
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the learned Special POCSO Court could validly cancel the bail granted to the petitioner on the alleged breach of conditions without providing him an opportunity of being heard, and whether such mechanical reliance on CCTV footage, absent a hearing, complied with the requirements of Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the principles of natural justice.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel contended that the petitioner was absent during the conversation between the advocates and the victim, thus no breach of Conditions Nos. 3 and 4 (non-influence of witnesses and non-contact with victim) occurred. They argued that the cancellation of bail was passed in a summary manner without affording the petitioner a chance to explain the allegations, which contravenes the mandatory procedural safeguards under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the doctrine of natural justice. They emphasized that the power to cancel bail must be exercised only upon cogent and sufficient grounds and after a hearing, citing the need for judicial discretion to be exercised with care, caution and circumspection.
For the Respondent
The learned APP submitted that the impugned order was a proper exercise of discretion, relying on the CCTV footage which showed that the petitioner had influenced witnesses and contacted the victim outside the designated room, thereby constituting a breach of bail conditions. She urged the Court to uphold the cancellation, asserting that the State had not placed any formal application on record alleging such breach, but the Court’s own observations justified the order.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by noting that the power to cancel bail is a serious and coercive measure that directly affects personal liberty and must be exercised with due care, caution and circumspection, only in appropriate cases and not in a routine or mechanical manner. It observed that the learned Special POCSO Court had cancelled the bail without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and without any formal application from the State alleging a breach. The Court held that an inference of breach, unsupported by the petitioner’s presence or explanation, cannot sustain a cancellation order.
The Court further examined the procedural requirements implicit in Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (which mirrors the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice). It emphasized that judicial discretion must be exercised in accordance with established legal framework and due process, and that any order affecting liberty must comply with the principles of natural justice, notably the right to be heard.
Regarding the evidence, the Court noted that while the learned Special POCSO Court had relied on CCTV footage, the footage did not establish that the petitioner himself had committed the alleged acts; it merely showed that the advocates were conversing with the victim outside the earmarked room. The Court pointed out that the petitioner’s absence at the relevant time negated any personal breach of Conditions Nos. 3 and 4. Consequently, the cancellation was based on conjecture rather than cogent and sufficient grounds.
The Court also addressed judicial propriety, noting that the learned Judge had personally gone to the place where the victim was present and instructed her to come to the courtroom for recording evidence. Such direct intervention, beyond what is judicially necessary, could give rise to an apprehension of bias and ought to be avoided. The Court stressed that the strength of the judiciary lies in discipline and adherence to established procedure.
In view of the foregoing, the Court concluded that the impugned order passed below Exhibit 1 in Special POCSO Case No. 44/2025, passed by the learned Special POCSO Judge and 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Deesa, was unsustainable in law. It therefore quashed and set aside the order. The Court directed that the petitioner be released on bail, provided his custody is not required in connection with any other case or for any other lawful purpose. The Registry was directed to communicate the order to the concerned Jail Authority forthwith, and the rule was made absolute.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court quashed the bail-cancellation order passed on 21.09.2026 and directed the release of the petitioner on bail, if his custody is not required in any other case or for any other lawful purpose. No monetary compensation or costs were awarded. The Registry was ordered to communicate the judgment to the jail authority immediately.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Bail Cancellation Requires a Hearing
Practitioners must ensure that any application for cancellation of bail is supported by a formal allegation and that the accused is afforded an opportunity to explain alleged breaches before the court passes an order. Mechanical reliance on circumstantial evidence such as CCTV footage, without a hearing, is insufficient to sustain a cancellation order.
Judicial Detachment in Victim-Centred Proceedings
Courts should avoid direct personal interaction with victims beyond what is strictly necessary for recording evidence. Such intervention may create an apprehension of bias and undermines the perception of neutrality, especially in sensitive cases like those under POCSO.
Scope of Section 528 BNSS
The judgment clarifies that the inherent power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash proceedings or pass orders in the interest of justice cannot be exercised to override procedural safeguards. The provision does not dispense with the requirement of a hearing when liberty is at stake.
