Delhi High Court: An appeal was filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Act (Prevention of Attrocities), 1989 (‘the SC & ST Act’), by the victim, challenging an order dated 01-04-2023 (‘the impugned order’) in which the Additional Sessions Judge-02 (South-District), Saket Courts, New Delhi (‘the Trial Court’) ordered the granting of bail to Respondent 2, in FIR registered under Section 376, 354-B, and 506 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), and Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST Act. Navin Chawla, J.*, opined that as the impugned order granting bail to Respondent 2 was passed by the Trial Court without ensuring service of notice of the application on the appellant and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant, the impugned order dated 01-04-2023 granting bail to Respondent 2 was liable to be set aside.
The appellant-victim challenged the impugned order as the same was passed without serving notice of the application filed by Respondent 2 seeking bail in FIR on the appellant. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order had, therefore, been passed in violation of Sections 15-A(3) and Section 15-A(5) of the SC & ST Act.
The Trial Court, after taking cognizance of the offences under IPC and SC & ST Act, summoned Respondent 2. On 01-04-2023, the Trial Court granted bail to Respondent 2.
Respondent 2, therefore, contended that no fault could be found with the impugned order as the notice on the application seeking bail was issued by the Trial Court to the appellant before passing the impugned order.
The Court, on its perusal of the Trial Court’s record, stated that the record did not show that the notice issued by the Trial Court was served to the appellant. The Court relied on Sections 15-A(3) and 15-A(5) of the SC & ST Act and opined that it was mandatory for the Court to issue a reasonable notice of any Court proceedings, including any bail application filed by the accused, to the victim and it conferred a right on the victim or the dependent of a victim to be heard at any proceeding under the SC & ST Act.
The Court relied on Hariram Bhambhi v. Satyanarayan, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1010 and opined that where there was an infraction of the mandate of Sections 15-A(3) and 15-A(5) of the SC & ST Act, it could not be cured by providing a hearing to the victim in a proceeding that arises subsequently, including one for cancellation of bail. Compliance with Sections 15-A(3) and 15-A(5) of the SC & ST Act was mandatory in nature and the bail granted in contravention thereof was liable to be set aside only on that ground.
The Court opined that as the impugned order granting bail to Respondent 2 was passed by the Trial Court without ensuring service of notice of the application filed by Respondent 2 seeking bail, on the appellant and without giving an opportunity of hearing on the said application to the appellant, the impugned order dated 01-04-2023 granting bail to Respondent 2 was liable to be set aside.
The Court allowed the appeal and stated that the application seeking bail filed by Respondent 2 was restored back to the file of the Special Judge and the same should be considered by the Special Judge after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
[X v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1027, decided on 14-02-2024]
Judgment by: Justice Navin Chawla
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellant: Mr. Trideep Pais, Senior Advocate; Mr. Mihir Samson, Ms. Asawari Sodhi, Ms. Gargi Sethi, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP; Mr. SK Manan, Senior Advocate; Mr. Rahul Khan, Mr. Karmanya Singh Choudhary, Mr. Ritik and Mr. Lavish, Advocates.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
