The Supreme Court recently quashed a High Court order that had granted bail to two individuals accused of serious offenses, including gang rape and violations under the SC/ST Act. The decision was made after it was revealed that the victim had not been informed of or included in the bail proceedings before the Allahabad High Court, violating statutory provisions under the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) and the SC/ST Act.
The case was brought to the Supreme Court after an appeal by the victim, who challenged the High Court's order granting bail to the accused in a case involving charges under Section 376DA (gang rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sections of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, and provisions of the SC/ST Act. The victim contended that her right to be heard in the bail proceedings had been violated as she was neither included as a party in the bail application nor informed of the hearing by the public prosecutor.
The bench, composed of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, emphasized that the absence of the victim in the bail proceedings was a direct violation of statutory provisions that safeguard the rights of victims in such serious cases. It pointed out that the failure to notify the victim or her representative about the bail hearing left her without the opportunity to participate in a decision that could directly affect her safety and justice.
The Court observed that under Section 439(1A) of the CrPC, the presence of the victim or their authorized representative is mandatory during bail hearings in such cases, a requirement also reinforced by Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST Act, which mandates timely notification to the victim about any court proceedings, including bail hearings.
“In the instant case, there is gross violation of the said statutory provisions contained in Section 439(1A) of Cr.P.C. and Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST Act, at the instance of the respondents. The High Court also in the impugned order has not considered the said mandatory requirement of both the Acts and granted bail to the concerned respondents in a very casual and cursory manner and without assigning any cogent reasons, though the concerned respondents are prima facie involved in a very serious offence,” the Court observed.
The Court expressed its disapproval of the High Court’s handling of the case, criticizing it for granting bail to the accused without fulfilling these mandatory legal requirements. The Court observed that the High Court's decision was made in a "very casual and cursory manner," without the necessary consideration of the victim’s rights or the gravity of the offenses involved.
The accused in the case, were not only facing charges under the IPC for gang rape but were also charged under the POCSO Act and the SC/ST Act, both of which protect vulnerable groups such as children and members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Given the nature of the charges, the Court noted that the involvement of the victim in the bail process was especially mandatory.
The Court concluded that, due to the violation of the victim's rights, the orders passed by the High Court were "utter disregard" for the law, leading to their quashing. It ordered that the accused surrender before the trial court by December 30, 2024.
"Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the impugned orders passed by the High Court in utter disregard of the mandatory provisions contained in the Cr.P.C. as well as in the SC/ST Act, deserve to be set aside and are hereby set aside," the bench ruled, emphasizing that the rights of the victim must be respected throughout the judicial process.
Read Order @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
