The Supreme Court will examine whether a complainant or victim in a rape case must be notified and heard before granting anticipatory bail to an accused. This follows a Kerala High Court decision that canceled bail due to the victim not being heard, raising significant questions regarding procedural justice and rights in sensitive cases.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday (Dec 2nd) agreed to examine a critical legal question: “Must the complainant or victim in a rape case be issued notice and heard before granting anticipatory bail to an accused?” The case, Suresh Babu KV v. State of Kerala, stems from an appeal challenging an April 2024 order of the Kerala High Court.
In its controversial decision, the Kerala High Court canceled the anticipatory bail granted to the appellant-accused by a trial court, citing that the complainant-victim had not been heard in the proceedings. This, the High Court argued, was a procedural lapse that warranted the cancellation of bail, despite acknowledging that the accused had not obstructed the investigation post-bail.
The accused, who faces charges under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (rape), approached the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court’s decision was flawed. Represented by Senior Advocate R. Basant, the appellant argued that
“the High Court could not have cancelled anticipatory bail solely on a technical ground that the victim was not heard by the trial court.”
A Division Bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan took note of the appellant’s arguments and agreed to examine the matter. The Supreme Court issued notice in the case and stayed the High Court’s order canceling the bail.
The appellant’s legal team, which included advocates Sriram Parakkat and Sarath Janardanan, highlighted that the High Court’s decision to prioritize procedural technicalities over the substance of the case set a concerning precedent.
The top court observed that the question raised by the accused—whether the victim must be mandatorily heard during anticipatory bail hearings—has significant implications for the legal process in sensitive cases like rape. “Taking note of the entirety of the circumstances,” the Supreme Court agreed to deliberate on the issue further.
This case is expected to clarify the procedural obligations of trial courts during anticipatory bail hearings in sexual offense cases, balancing the rights of the accused with those of the complainant. The Supreme Court’s decision will have far-reaching consequences for the interpretation of procedural justice in cases involving serious criminal charges.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
