Supreme Court’s Approach in Considering Bail Application:

POCSO Cases:
• Stringent Approach: In bail jurisprudence the fundamental principle is bail, and not
jail, should be guiding principle of courts. The Supreme Court of India generally
adopts a stringent attitude in considering bail in POCSO cases due to vulnerability of
child and the severity of offence.
• Prevention from Influencing Witnesses: There may be denial of bail to prevent the
accused from influencing and threatening the witnesses, tampering with the evidence,
or committing the offence again.
• Protection of child victims: Prioritize safeguarding the well-being and optimal
interest of child victims.
Mahesh Prasad Yadav vs. State of Bihar [(2019) 12 SCC 209]:
In this case the supreme court highlighted the essence of protection of child victims in
POCSO cases and said that bail should not be granted if there is any chance of tampering
with the evidence and intimidating the witnesses.
Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab [(2014) 3 SCC 92]:
The supreme court stated that in POCSO cases bail should be granted intermittently
keeping in mind the seriousness of offence under POCSO act.
Pradeep Ram vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2019) 13 SCC 141]:
The court pointed out that bail should not be granted if there is a possibility of
commission of offence repeatedly which endangers the safety of victim and witnesses.
Section 18 of POCSO Act provides that unless it is found by the court on reasonable
grounds that the charges are false or fabricated, anticipatory bail should not be granted to
the accused person during demonstration. [In Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs. The State
of Maharashtra 2020 SCC Online SC 964, Bombay High Court reiterated the
conditions in Section 18 POCSO act, and stated that in such cases the most
essential consideration should be prioritize the victim’s interests and prevention of
undue influence or intimidation by the accused.]
SC/ST Atrocities Act:
In these cases, Supreme Court carefully considers various factors to ensure justice for the
victims while also preventing the misuse of the law.
• The court scrutinizes stringently the applications of bail under the Act strictly
reflecting on the gravity of the offence and the impact on the SC/ST
community.
• Protection of the rights of SC/ST community and securing justice for victims of
caste-based atrocities.
• There is often a presumption against granting bail, specially if the offence is of
serious nature, unless there is sufficient evidence that the case against the
accused is prima facie false.
 • The court has discretion in considering bail in these cases, and it is exercised
based on the facts and circumstances of each case, so that fair balance between
protection of community rights and individual freedom.
• Prevention of misuse of Act, especially false accusation harassing individuals,
if there is sufficient evidence to prove, then the bail may be granted.
Landmark Case:
Dr. Kashinath Mahajan vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. [(2018) 6 SCC
454]:
• Issued guideline for prevention of misuse of SC/ST Atrocities Act.
• Stated that anticipatory bail cannot be granted to the accused unless it is
proved that there is prima facie false accusation.
• Emphasized the importance of implementation of Act strictly for the
protection of SC/ST communities’ rights and ensuring justice to the
victims.
Domestic Violence Act:
• The Supreme Court thoroughly balances the protection of victim’s interests
while also protecting the rights of accused under Domestic Violence Act.
• Bail is provided with terms and conditions which is aimed at safeguarding the
rights of victim and ensuring that the accused adheres to the legal requirements.
• Exercise of judicial discretion while considering individual circumstances,
gravity of offence, and possibility of the offence being repeated.
Case laws:
Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar [(2014) 8 SCC 273]: Emphasize against routine
arrest in domestic violence cases.
Sudhakar vs. State of Maharashtra [(2019) 15 SCC 424]: Highlighted the
importance of a fair trial and ensuring the interests of the victims.
Rajesh Sharma vs. State of U.P. [(2017) 14 SCC 643]: Provided guidelines to
prevent the misuse of Section 498A of IPC, regarding domestic violence.