Delhi High Court: In a petition seeking cancellation of bail granted to the accused in a case under Section 376, Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 69, Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) a Single Judge Bench of Saurabh Banerjee, J., set aside the bail order after finding that the prosecutrix was not afforded an opportunity to be present and heard.
Relying on Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra, (2022) 9 SCC 321 and Ms P v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2527, the Court held that the victim is entitled to participate at all stages of criminal proceedings, including the hearing of a regular bail application. Accordingly, the matter was remanded to the trial court for fresh consideration after hearing the prosecutrix. The Court, however, directed that the accused shall not be re-arrested till fresh adjudication, as the bail order was set aside only on the limited ground of non-service of notice upon the prosecutrix.
Background
The present petition has been filed by the prosecutrix under Section 483(3) read with Section 528, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking setting aside of the order dated 3 July 2026 passed by the ASJ-03, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, whereby regular bail was granted to Respondent 2/accused in Bail Application No. 625/2026 arising out of FIR No. 317/2026 registered at Police Station Dayalpur for offences under Section 376, Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 69 BNS.
The prosecution case, briefly, is that the accused, who was the prosecutrix’s neighbour, allegedly established physical relations with her on several occasions since January 2022 on the false promise of marriage, after having proposed to her on 10 October 2021. At the relevant time, the prosecutrix was lodged in Jail in connection with an FIR concerning an alleged acid attack on the accused’s fiancée. The prosecutrix alleged that on 14 April 2026, the accused’s fiancée and her family had threatened and assaulted her and that she was subsequently falsely implicated in the said case arising out of the altercation. Her statement was recorded on 29 June 2026, pursuant to which the present FIR was registered and the accused was arrested. The learned trial court, however, granted regular bail to the accused vide order dated 3 July 2026. Aggrieved thereby, the prosecutrix has approached the Court seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the accused.
Analysis and Decision
The Court held that the short question for consideration was whether the prosecutrix was accorded an opportunity to be present and heard at the time of consideration of the accused’s regular bail application. Referring to Section 439(1-A), Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) and the corresponding Section 483(2) BNSS, the Court observed that the informant or a person authorised by her is required to be afforded an opportunity to be present and heard in cases involving the specified offences. Relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Jagjeet Singh, as well as the decision of the Coordinate Bench in Ms P, the Court reiterated that a victim is entitled to participate at all stages of the criminal proceedings, including at the stage of consideration of an application for grant of regular bail.
The Court, therefore, held that the grant of regular bail to the accused within 3 days, without issuing notice to the prosecutrix or affording her an opportunity of being heard, could not be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 3 July 2026 was set aside and the bail application was remanded to the learned trial court for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of hearing to the prosecutrix, preferably within 2 weeks. The Court clarified that the bail application would be decided on its own merits and without being influenced by any observations made in the present proceedings. However, considering that the impugned order was being set aside only on the limited ground of non-service of notice upon the prosecutrix, the accused was directed not to be re-arrested till fresh adjudication by the trial court.
[Ms G v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2026 SCC OnLine Del 7473, decided on 28-9-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Bharat Sharma and Jyoti Sharma, Advocates
For the Respondent: Satish Kumar, APP for State SI Shiv Dayal Kumar, PS.: Dayal Pur; Dhananjay Singh, Mandeep Baisara, Kavesh Bidhuri and Shobhit Anand, Advocates
