Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said that it is mandatory as per statute to inform the victim before hearing the bail of the accused in a case of rape or similar proceedings initiated under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma set aside the Allahabad High Court's order granting bail to two gangrape case accused after finding utter disregard to the statutory provisions, upon acting on a petition filed by the 14-year-old survivor.

In the instant case, the bench said, it appeared that the concerned respondents – accused had not impleaded the victim as the party – respondent in the bail proceedings filed by them before the High Court, and the concerned Public Prosecutor also had not informed the appellant – victim about the said proceedings.

"It is pertinent to note that as per Section 439(1A) of CrPC, the presence of the informant or any person authorised by him or her is obligatory at the time of hearing of the application for bail to the person under sub-section (3) of Section 376 or Section 376AB or Section 376DA or Section 376DB of the IPC," the bench said.

Similarly, the court also pointed out that it is also mandatory on the part of the Special Public Prosecutor of the State Government to inform the victim about the court proceedings, including bail proceedings as contemplated in sub-section (3) of Section 15A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The victim questioned the correctness of the bail orders in the case registered for the offences under Sections 323/363/376DA/506/392 of IPC and Sections 5(g) and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, and Sections 3(2) and 5(A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The victim's counsel raised a substantial question of law, as to whether the appellant should have been given an opportunity of hearing and should have been made party in the bail proceedings filed by the concerned respondents before the High Court.

After hearing the counsel, the bench said, "There is gross violation of the said statutory provisions contained in Section 439(1A) of CrPC and Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST Act, at the instance of the respondents."

The court also noted that the High Court also in the impugned order had 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.

"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 CrPC as well as in the SC/ST Act, deserve to be set aside and are hereby set aside," the bench ordered.

The court accordingly directed the two accused Khargesh and Golu to surrender before the trial court on or before December 30, 2024.

According to the facts of the matter, the victim, known to the accused as being neighbour, claimed that the accused persons had taken her to a flat and sexually assaulted her.

Case Title: X Vs The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr