In the instant case, it appears to be that the
concerned respondents – accused had not impleaded the
present appellant as the party – respondent in the bail
proceedings filed by them before the High Court, and the
concerned Public Prosecutor also had not informed the
appellant – victim about the said proceedings. {Para 5}
6. It is pertinent to note that as per Section 439(1A)
of Cr.P.C., the presence of the informant or any person
authorised by him or her is obligatory at the time of
hearing of the application for bail to the person under
sub-section (3) of Section 376 or Section 376AB or Section
376DA or Section 376DB of the IPC. Similarly, it is also
mandatory on the part of the Special Public Prosecutor of
the State Government to inform the victim about the court
proceedings, including bail proceedings as contemplated in
sub-section (3) of Section 15A of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
7. In the instant case, there is gross violation of the
said statutory provisions contained in Section 439(1A) of
Cr.P.C. and Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST Act, at the
instance of the respondents. The High Court also in the
impugned order has not considered the said mandatory
requirement of both the Acts and granted bail to the
concerned respondents in a very casual and cursory manner
and without assigning any cogent reasons, though the
concerned respondents are prima facie involved in a very
serious offences.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.5385 OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.5027 of 2024)
X Vs THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
Dated: 13TH DECEMBER, 2024.
Print Page