Failure To Ensure Victim's Presence During Bail Hearings Violates S.439(1A) Of CrPC & S.15A(3) Of SC/ST Act; Renders Bail Unsustainable: Supreme Court
|The Supreme Court has set aside the bail orders granted by the High Court to two accused in a case involving serious offences 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, 1989 (SC/ST Act).
The Bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, while deciding two appeals filed by the victim (Appellant X), highlighted the gross violation of mandatory provisions under Section 439(1A) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST Act, which require the victim to be informed and heard during bail proceedings.
"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 offences," the Court said.
AOR Pranav Sachdeva appeared for the Petitioner, and AOR Dr. Vijendra Singh appeared for the Respondent.
The case arose from FIR No. 599 of 2021, registered for offences under Sections 323, 363, 376DA, 506, and 392 of IPC, Sections 5(g) and 6 of the POCSO Act, and Sections 3(2) and 5(A) of the SC/ST Act. The High Court had granted bail to the accused, Khargesh @ Golu and Karan, on August 11, 2023, without impleading the victim or notifying her of the bail proceedings.
The Court strongly criticized this omission, noting: “As per Section 439(1A) of CrPC and Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST Act, the presence of the informant or victim is mandatory during bail hearings in cases of grave sexual offences. The failure to comply with these provisions renders the bail orders legally unsustainable.”
The Court also reproached the High Court for granting bail in a “casual and cursory manner” without assigning cogent reasons, despite the seriousness of the charges.
While ordering the accused to surrender before the trial court on or before December 30, 2024, the Court allowed the victim’s appeals and set aside the impugned bail orders. "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 concerned respondents, i.e., Khargesh @ Golu, s/o Mukesh Kumar, and Karan, s/o Paramhans Singh, shall surrender before the Trial Court on or before 30.12.2024. Both the Appeals stand allowed accordingly," the Court ordered.
Cause Title: X v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).5027/2024]
Appearance:-
Petitioner: Advocates Pranav Sachdeva (AOR), Jatin Bhardwaj, D. Abhinav Rao (AOR), Pratik Samajpati
Respondent: Advocates Dr. Vijendra Singh (AOR), Vikas Bansal, Rakesh Mishra (AOR), Rajiv Dewan, Divakar Kuma (AOR)
Click here to read/download the Order