Supreme Court: Mandatory To Hear Informant/Victim Before Granting Bail In Rape Offences, SC/ST Act Cases

 In the instant case, it appears to be that the

concerned respondents – accused had not impleaded the

present appellant 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. {Para 5}

6. It is pertinent to note that as per Section 439(1A)

of Cr.P.C., 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. Similarly, 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.

7. 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.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.5385 OF 2024

(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.5027 of 2024)

X  Vs THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

Dated: 13TH DECEMBER, 2024.

1. Leave granted.

2. Both the Appeals arising out of the common F.I.R. and

involving common question of law have been heard together

and are being decided by this common order.

3. The Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5027 of 2024

is filed by the appellant – X challenging the impugned

order dated 11.08.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail

Application No.44142 of 2021, and the Appeal arising out of

SLP(Crl.) No.5305 of 2024 is filed by the same appellant -

X challenging the impugned Order dated 11.08.2023 passed in

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.43380 of 2021 whereby

the High Court has granted bail to the concerned respondent

No.2 accused in both the Appeals in connection with the FIR

No.599 of 2021 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

1

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989 (hereinafter referred to as “SC/ST Act”).

4. In both the Appeals, the learned counsel for the

appellant, who is the victim, has 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.

5. In the instant case, it appears to be that the

concerned respondents – accused had not impleaded the

present appellant 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.

6. It is pertinent to note that as per Section 439(1A)

of Cr.P.C., 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. Similarly, 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.

7. 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.

8. 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 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.

9. Both the Appeals stand allowed accordingly.

10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed

of.

......................J.

 (BELA M. TRIVEDI)

......................J.

 (SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA)

NEW DELHI;

13TH DECEMBER, 2024.

Print Page