The Delhi High Court has established a crucial precedent concerning bail applications under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. This landmark decision, delivered by Justice Navin Chawla, underscores the indispensable requirement of hearing the victim or complainant before granting bail to the accused in cases filed under the SC/ST Act.
The case, identified as X v State NCT of Delhi & Anr, became a focal point of legal scrutiny when a victim challenged the trial court’s decision to grant bail to the accused involved in a grievous offense. The accused faced charges under Section 376 (rape), 354B (disrobing a woman in public), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, alongside Sections 3(1)(w)(i) (sexually touching a woman of SC/ST community) and 3(2)(v) (disrespecting a person of SC/ST community who is held in high esteem) of the SC & ST Act.
Justice Navin Chawla, in his ruling, emphasized,
“bail granted without issuing notice to the complainant is liable to be cancelled,”
highlighting the procedural lapses that overlooked the victim’s right to be heard. The court’s decision was informed by the principles laid out in the Supreme Court judgment of Hariram Bhambhi v. Satyanarayan & Anr., which advocated for the victim’s participation in the bail process. The counsel for the victim argued that the bail was granted
“without serving the notice of the bail application on the appellant and without giving her an opportunity of hearing and opposing the same,” rendering the trial court’s order “liable to be set aside on this limited ground itself.”
Also Reda- Kerala Bar Council Raises Concerns Over Treatment Of Lawyer By High Court Judge (lawchakra.in)
The Delhi High Court meticulously examined the procedural requirements stipulated under the SC & ST Act, particularly focusing on subsections (3) and (5) of Section 15A, which mandate the issuance of reasonable notice to victims or their dependents regarding court proceedings, including bail applications. The judgment stated,
“It is apparent that where there is an infraction of the mandate of sub-section (3) and (5) of Section 15A of the SC & ST Act, it cannot be cured by providing a hearing to the victim in a proceeding that arises subsequently, including one for cancellation of bail.”
By setting aside the bail order and restoring the application to the file of the Special Judge for reconsideration, the Delhi High Court not only rectified a procedural oversight but also reinforced the legal framework protecting the rights of victims, especially those belonging to marginalized communities. The court’s decision to grant the accused a 15-day reprieve before being taken into custody again, pending further orders by the Special Judge, reflects a balanced approach towards ensuring justice and upholding the principles of fairness and equity.
This ruling serves as a significant reminder of the judiciary’s role in safeguarding the procedural rights of victims in the legal process, particularly in cases involving atrocities against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It underscores the necessity of adhering to statutory obligations and ensuring that the voices of the most vulnerable are heard and considered in the quest for justice.
