As per case facts, a mother complained about sexual exploitation of her minor daughter by accused-opposite party no.2, leading to an FIR under IPC and POCSO Act. The accused's bail ... applications were initially rejected, but he was later granted bail by the trial court solely because a chargesheet was filed, despite the victim's statement detailing sexual assault, blackmail, and severe trauma. The petitioner sought cancellation of bail, arguing the bail order was perverse and failed to consider the offense's gravity and POCSO Act's presumption. The question arose whether the bail cancellation application was maintainable and if the trial court's bail order was sustainable. Finally, the High Court found the application maintainable, stating that challenging a perverse bail order is different from cancelling due to misconduct. The court cancelled the bail, finding the trial court's order unsustainable as it was granted mechanically, ignoring critical factors like the offense's gravity and the victim's powerful statement. The court clarified that the POCSO Act's presumption triggers upon proving foundational facts, not at the FIR stage.