No Opportunity Given: Delhi HC Sets Aside Order Of Trial Court Granting Bail To Accused In Rape Case Without Victim Being Heard

The Delhi High Court set aside the order of the Trial Court by which an accused in rape case was granted bail without giving opportunity of hearing to the victim.

A petition was filed by the victim under Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge.

A Single Bench of Justice Navin Chawla observed, “Be that as it may, as it cannot be denied that the prosecutrix had not been served with a copy of the Bail Application, nor was issued notice of the same or given an opportunity to oppose the same, this would be in violation of the directions issued by the Supreme Court on the rights of the victim to be granted unbridled participatory rights in the proceedings and of being heard at every step post occurrence of the offence, including the right to be heard while deciding on the bail application. It has been held that contravention of the same shall result in grave miscarriage of justice. Reference in this regard may be drawn to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra (2022) 9 SCC 321.”

Advocate Samarth Teotia represented the petitioner while APP Aman Usman represented the respondents.

In this case, the Trial Court had granted bail to the accused in an FIR registered at a Police Station under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The limited grievance of the prosecutrix was that the accused was not served with a copy of the bail application, nor informed of the date of hearing before passing of the order. The Status Report filed by the State supported the plea of the accused and stated that even the Investigating Officer (IO) was not informed of the date of hearing of the bail application.

The High Court in view of the above facts noted, “As far as IO is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that the record of the learned Trial Court reflects that the IO had been duly served.”

The Court further said that the accused shall be entitled to move a fresh application seeking bail from the Trial Court and such application shall be considered by it in accordance with law.

“Considering the fact that the respondent no.2 has been on bail since 14.06.2022 and the order is being set aside due to the learned Trial Court failing to comply with the procedure stipulated, it is directed that the respondent no. 2 shall file an application seeking bail, within a period of two weeks from today. Subject to such an application being filed, the respondent no.2 shall not be arrested until an order being passed by the learned Trial Court on such an application. It is reiterated that the question of the extension of the interim protection granted by this Court by the present order, shall be at the discretion of the learned Trial Court. On an application being filed by the respondent no.2, it would be for the learned Trial Court to pass appropriate orders thereon”, it directed.

The Court concluded that as there is a stay on the further proceedings before the Trial Court, the said order staying the proceedings will not act as a bar on the Trial Court to consider the application filed by the accused, if any, for seeking bail.

Accordingly, the High Court set aside the impugned order and disposed of the petition.

Cause Title- Ms. P v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:2795)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate Samarth Teotia

Respondents: APP Aman Usman, Advocates Sanjay Rastogi, Aman Rastogi, and Yashima Arora.

Click here to read/download the Judgment