Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss.2(wa),372, 439 – Victim’s right to be heard – Consideration for granting bail – Lakhimpur Kheri Incident – On 03.10.2021, an annual Dangal (wrestling) competition was organised by respondent-accused – Some supporters of respondent No.1, who were travelling by a car to the Dangal venue were allegedly attacked by certain farmers – Due to the large protest, the route of the Chief Guest had to be changed – Respondent Accused became agitated –Respondent No.1 and his aides, armed with weapons, left the Dangal venue in a Mahindra Thar SUV, a Fortuner vehicle and a Scorpio vehicle, and drove towards the farmers’ protest site and allegedly drove into the crowd of the returning farmers and hit them –As a consequence of this incident, four farmers, one journalist, the driver of the Thar Vehicle and two others, got killed –Respondent-accused was charged u/ss. 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 326 r/w. ss. 34 and 120B IPC, and u/ss.3, 25 and 30 of the Arms Act, 1959 –Respondent-accused moved bail application before High Court – High Court granted regular bail to him, opining that it was a case of “accident by hitting with the vehicle’’ –Aggrieved victims filed instant appeal – Held: The right of a victim under the amended Cr.P.C. are substantive, enforceable, and are another facet of human rights – A ‘victim’ within the meaning of Cr.P.C. cannot be asked to await the commencement of trial for asserting his/her right to participate in the proceedings – A ‘victim’ has unbridled participatory rights from the stage of investigation till the culmination of the proceedings in an appeal or revision – High Court failed to acknowledge the right of the victims –The ‘victims’ were denied a fair and effective hearing at the time of granting bail to respondent-Accused –High Court completely lost sight of the principles which conventionally govern a Court’s discretion when deciding the question whether or not to grant bail – High Court adopted a myopic view of the evidence on the record and proceeded to decide the case on merits –High Court took into account several irrelevant considerations, whilst simultaneously ignoring judicial precedents and established parameters for grant of bail –The impugned order of the High cannot be sustained –To meet ends of justice, case remitted to High Court for fresh adjudication of the bail application after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the victims as well.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Considerations while granting the bail – A Court while deciding an application for bail, should refrain from evaluating or undertaking a detailed assessment of evidence, as the same is not a relevant consideration at the threshold stage – While a Court may examine prima facie issues, including any reasonable grounds whether the accused committed an offence or the severity of the offence itself, an extensive consideration of merits which has the potential to prejudice either the case of the prosecution or the defence, is undesirable. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:Right of victims to be heard – First Indian jurisprudence is constantly evolving, whereby, the right of victims to be heard, especially in cases involving heinous crimes, is increasingly being acknowledged; Second, where the victims themselves have come forward to participate in a criminal proceeding, they must be accorded with an opportunity of a fair and effective hearing – If the right to file an appeal against acquittal is not accompanied with the right to be heard at the time of deciding a bail application, the same may result in grave miscarriage of justice.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Cancellation of Bail – Interference by Supreme Court –This Court on account of the factors like (i) irrelevant considerations having impacted the impugned order granting bail; (ii) the High Court exceeding its jurisdiction by touching upon the merits of the case; (iii) denial of victims’ right to participate in the proceedings; and (iv) the tearing hurry shown by the High Court in entertaining or granting bail to the respondent/accused; can rightfully cancel the bail.
Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court, the Court
HELD: 1. A ‘victim’ within the meaning of Cr.P.C. cannot be asked to await the commencement of trial for asserting his/her right to participate in the proceedings. He/She has a legally vested right to be heard at every step post the occurrence of an offence. Such a ‘victim’ has unbridled participatory rights from the stage of investigation till the culmination of the proceedings in an appeal or revision. ‘Victim’ and ‘complainant/informant’ are two distinct connotations in criminal jurisprudence. It is not always necessary that the complainant/informant is also a ‘victim’, for even a stranger to the act of crime can be an ‘informant’, and similarly, a ‘victim’ need not be the complainant or informant of a felony. [Para 24][547-G-H; 548-A-B]
2. This Court is tasked with ensuring that neither the right of an accused to seek bail pending trial is expropriated, nor the ‘victim’ or the State are denuded of their right to oppose such a prayer. In a situation like this, and with a view to balance the competing rights, this Court has been invariably remanding the matter(s) back to the High Court for a fresh consideration. The ends of justice would be adequately met by remitting this case to the High Court for a fresh adjudication of the bail application of the Respondent-accused, in a fair, impartial and dispassionate manner. The bail application shall be decided on merits and after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the victims as well. If the victims are unable to engage the services of a private counsel, it shall be obligatory upon the High Court to provide them a legal aid counsel with adequate experience in criminal law, at the State’s expense. [Paras 43, 44][554-C-F]
Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2019) 2 SCC 752 : [2018] 13 SCR 1; Narendra K. Amin (Dr.) v. State of Gujarat & Anr. (2008) 13 SCC
584 : [2008] 6 SCR 1149, Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 – relied on.
Kanwar Singh Meena v. State of Rajasthan (2012) 12 SCC 180 : [2012] 10 SCR 847; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr. (2010) 14 SCC 496 : [2010]
12 SCR 1165 – affirmed.
Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. & Anr. (2014) 16 SCC 508 : [2014] 12 SCR 453; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. (2018) 12 SCC 129 : [2017] 11 SCR
195 (32);. Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr. (2020) 2 SCC 118 : [2019] 14 SCR 529; Alister Anthony Pariera v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 : [2012] 1 SCR 145; Puran v. Rambilas & Anr. (2001) 6 SCC 338 : [2001] 3 SCR 432; Naresh Pal Singh v. Raj Karan and Anr. (1999) 9 SCC 104; Brij Nandan Jaiswal v. Munna alias Munna Jaiswal & Anr. (2009) 1 SCC 678 : [2008] 17 SCR 1348; Hasri Om Yadav v. Dinesh L Singh Jaat & Anr. 2013 SCC Online SC 610 – referred to.
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.