In a significant judgment emphasizing victim rights, the Supreme Court of India overturned bail orders granted by the Allahabad High Court in a case involving serious offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The apex court reiterated the mandatory legal requirement to hear victims or their representatives in such cases before granting bail to the accused.
Case Background
The appeals, Criminal Appeal Nos. 5385/2024 and 5386/2024, were filed by the appellant, referred to as “X,” who is the victim in this case. The appeals challenged the High Court’s orders granting bail to the accused, Khargesh alias Golu and Karan, in connection with FIR No. 599 of 2021. The case involved allegations of kidnapping, gang rape, and other serious charges under Sections 323, 363, 376DA, 506, and 392 of the IPC, Sections 5(g) and 6 of the POCSO Act, and Sections 3(2) and 5(A) of the SC/ST Act.
Legal Issues and Observations
The Supreme Court addressed the critical question of whether the victim or informant must be heard before bail is granted to the accused in cases involving heinous crimes such as rape and atrocities under the SC/ST Act. The appellant argued that the High Court violated statutory provisions by failing to ensure the victim’s presence during bail proceedings.
The Court highlighted two key provisions:
– Section 439(1A) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) mandates the presence of the informant or a person authorized by them during bail hearings for specific offenses under Section 376 of the IPC.
– Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST Act requires the Special Public Prosecutor to inform the victim about court proceedings, including bail applications.
The Court noted that both provisions were ignored by the High Court, which granted bail “in a casual and cursory manner.”
Supreme Court Decision
A Bench comprising Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held that the High Court’s orders granting bail were in violation of the mandatory statutory provisions. Observing that such lapses undermine the rights of victims in serious criminal cases, the Bench remarked:
“The presence of the informant or victim’s representative during bail proceedings is not optional but a statutory mandate. Ignoring this amounts to a denial of justice to the victim.”
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s bail orders and directed the accused to surrender before the trial court by December 30, 2024.
Representation
The appellant was represented by advocates Pranav Sachdeva and Jatin Bhardwaj, while the respondents were represented by Dr. Vijendra Singh and Vikas Bansal.
