SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: ss.15A(3) and 15A(5) – Rights of victims – Notice under s.15A not issued to victim/dependents while hearing bail application of accused – Effect of – Held: Sub-sections (3) and (5) of s.15A specifically make the victim or their dependent an active stakeholder in the criminal proceedings – These provisions enable a member of the marginalized caste to effectively pursue a case and counteract the effects of defective investigations – Sub-section (3) confers a right to a prior notice, this being evident from the use of the expression “reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any court proceeding including any bail proceeding” – Sub-section (5) provides for a right to be heard to the victim or to a dependent – The provisions of sub-section (3) which stipulate the requirement of notice and of sub-section (5) which confers a right to be heard must be construed harmoniously – The defect in not issuing notice to the victim or their dependent and depriving them of the opportunity to be heard in the concerned proceedings (for grant of bail) cannot be cured by providing them a hearing in a proceeding that arose subsequently (for cancellation of bail) – Compliance with the principles of natural justice must be observed at every stage under the mandate of the statute. SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: s.15A – Undue delay in issuing notice to the victim – Held: Sub-section (3) of s.15A provides that a reasonable and timely notice must be issued to the victim or their dependent – This would entail that the notice is served upon victims or their dependents at the first or earliest possible instance – If undue delay is caused in the issuance of notice, the victim, or as the case may be, their dependents, would remain uninformed of the progress made in the case and it would prejudice their rights to effectively oppose the defense of the accused – It would also ultimately delay the bail proceedings or the trial, affecting the rights of the accused as well.
Bail: Duty of court while granting bail – Considerations while granting bail – In the instant case, High Court held that it was just and expedient to release the first respondent on bail “keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case” – The bail order did not mention factors that are relevant for the grant of bail, which are (i) the seriousness and gravity of the offence; and (ii) the role attributed to the first respondent in the commission of the crime – Thus, the order of the High Court in granting bail cannot pass muster – The duty to record reasons cannot be obviated by recording submissions, followed by an omnibus “in the facts and circumstances” formula – Brief reasons which indicate the basis for granting bail are essential, for it is the reasons adduced by the court which indicate the basis of the order – Judgment/Order – Reasoned order – SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: Object of enactment – Discussed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
Held: 1. The SC/ST Act has been enacted by the Parliament to effectuate a salutary public purpose of achieving the fulfillment of constitutional rights of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Section 15A, which comes under Chapter IV-A of the SC/ST Act titled ‘Rights of victims and witnesses’, was introduced by way of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, which came into effect on 26 January 2016. [Paras 10, 11][865-F; 866-G-H]
2. Investigations in India are the exclusive domain of the police, where victims are often relegated to the role of being a spectator in the criminal justice system. Victims of crime often face significant hurdles during investigation and prosecution. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes specifically suffer on account of procedural lapses in the criminal justice system. They face insurmountable hurdles in accessing justice from the stage of filing the complaint to the conclusion of the trial. Due to the fear of retribution from members of upper caste groups, ignorance or police apathy, many victims do not register complaints in the first place. If victims or their relatives muster up the courage to approach the police, the police officials are reluctant to register complaints or do not record allegations accurately. Eventually, if the case does get registered, the victims and witnesses are vulnerable to intimidation, violence and social and economic boycott. Further, many perpetrators of caste-based atrocities get away scot-free due to shoddy investigations and the negligence of prosecuting advocates. This results in low conviction rates under the SC/ST Act giving rise to the erroneous perception that cases registered under the Act are false and that it is being misused. On the contrary, the reality is that many acquittals are a result of improper investigation and prosecution of crime, leading to insufficient evidence. This is evident from the low percentage of cases attracting the application of the provisions of the Penal Code relating to false complaints as compared to the rate of acquittals. [Para 12][867-C-G]
3. Sub-section (3) of Section 15A confers a right to a prior notice, this being evident from the use of the expression “reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any court proceeding including any bail proceeding”. Sub-section (5) provides for a right to be heard to the victim or to a dependent. The provisions of sub-section (3) which stipulate the requirement of notice and of sub-section (5) which confers a right to be heard must be construed harmoniously. The requirement of issuing a notice facilitates the right to be heard. [Para 14][868-G-H; 869-A-C] Sunita Gandharva v. State of MP & Anr. 2020 SCC OnLine MP 2193; Hemal Ashwin Jain v. Union of India R/Special Civil Application No. 6369 of 2020 – relied on.
4. In the present case, it is evident that the right to notice and to be heard were violated. Initially, when S.B. Criminal Appeal No.1132/2019 was heard by the High Court against the denial of bail by the Special Judge in the first bail application, the appellant was present through counsel. The appeal under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act was not pressed by the first respondent and was accordingly dismissed. When the High Court entertained S.B. Criminal Appeal No.2518/2019 on 7 November 2019, no notice was given to the appellant. The High Court allowed the application for bail. When the appellant moved the High Court for cancellation of bail, the Single Judge took the view that compliance with the principles of natural justice at that particular stage would cure the deficiency. There has been a clear infraction of the mandate of the statute. Sub-sections (3) and (5) have been introduced by the Parliament to ensure a right to be heard to the person against whom the offence is committed or to the dependents. These provisions must be scrupulously observed. The defect in not issuing notice to the victim or their dependent and depriving them of the opportunity to be heard in the concerned proceedings (for grant of bail) cannot be cured by providing them a hearing in a proceeding that arose subsequently (for cancellation of bail). Compliance with the principles of natural justice must be observed at every stage under the mandate of the statute. [Paras 18, 19][871-A-F]
Ajeet Chaudhary v. State of UP 2021 SCC OnLine All 417; Basheer M. v. State of Kerala 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 1675; Marenna and Ors. v. The State & Ors. 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 1077; Abid v. State of Rajasthan 2020 SCC OnLine Raj 2703 – relied on.
5. Atrocities against members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are not a thing of the past. They continue to be a reality in our society even today. Hence the statutory provisions which have been enacted by Parliament as a measure of protecting the constitutional rights of persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes must be complied with and enforced conscientiously. There has been an evident breach of the statutory requirements embodied in sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 15A in the present case. [Para 20][871-F-G]
6. Sub-section (3) of Section 15A provides that a reasonable and timely notice must be issued to the victim or their dependent. This would entail that the notice is served upon victims or their dependents at the first or earliest possible instance. If undue delay is caused in the issuance of notice, the victim, or as the case may be, their dependents, would remain uninformed of the progress made in the case and it would prejudice their rights to effectively oppose the defense of the accused. It would also ultimately delay the bail proceedings or the trial, affecting the rights of the accused as well. [Para 21][871-H; 872-A-B]
Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai
Makwana (2021) 6 SCC 230 – relied on.
7. While granting bail to the first respondent, the High Court in its order only recorded the submission of counsel for the first respondent that PW-2, the spouse of the deceased, had in the course of her statement recorded during the trial, stated that the deceased had gone with her brother ‘K’; that ‘K’ had obtained an insurance policy in the name of the deceased and that the murder had been committed by ‘K’ to obtain the proceeds of the insurance policy, with the help of his friends. There is absolutely no reasoning in the order of the High Court granting bail, after recording the submissions of the first respondent’s counsel apart from noting that the public prosecutor had opposed the bail. The High Court held that it was just and expedient to release the first respondent on bail “keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case”. Such orders cannot pass muster. The duty to record reasons cannot be obviated by recording submissions, followed by an omnibus “in the facts and circumstances” formula. Brief reasons which indicate the basis for granting bail are essential, for it is the reasons adduced by the court which indicate the basis of the order. [Para 23] [873-A-D]
8. Before the High Court granted bail by its order dated 7 November 2019, the final report had been submitted on 6 September 2018. The final report under Section 173 CrPC contains a detailed analysis of the call data records of the accused who were in continuous contact with each other, as well as of their location in close proximity to the date and time of the incident. The bail order does not make any mention of factors that are relevant for the grant of bail, which are (i) the seriousness and gravity of the offence; and (ii) the role attributed to the first respondent in the commission of the crime. In this backdrop, the order of the High Court in granting bail cannot pass muster. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant had filed an application seeking its recall. The Single Judge of the High Court by the impugned order dated 8 June 2021 simply reiterated that the bail was granted on the basis of the statement of the wife of the deceased, PW.2, once again failing to show any engagement with the considerations that govern the grant of bail. The order granting bail to the first respondent shall stand set aside. [Paras 24, 25][873-D-H]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.