Supreme Court: Victim has right be heard at every crucial stage of the criminal proceedings, including at the time of grant or cancellation of bail

  Our view is in line with the observations made by a three-Judges Bench of this Court in Jagjeet Singh And Others v. Ashish Mishra Alias Monu And Another39 wherein speaking for the Bench, Justice Suryakant made the following pertinent observations relating to the victim’s right to be heard and alluding to the recommendations made by the Law Commission of India in its 154th Report that highlighted “the right of the victim or his/her legal representative to be impleaded as a party in every criminal proceedings where the charges are punishable with 7 years’ imprisonment or more”, observed thus :-

“19. It was further recommended that the victim be armed with a right to be represented by an advocate of his/her choice, and if he/she is not in a position to afford the same, to provide an advocate at the State's expense. The victim's right to participate in criminal trial and his/her right to know the status of investigation, and take necessary steps, or to be heard at every crucial stage of the criminal proceedings, including at the time of grant or cancellation of bail, were also duly recognised by the Committee. Repeated judicial intervention, coupled with the recommendations made from time to time as briefly noticed above, prompted Parliament to bring into force the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008, which not only inserted the definition of a “victim” under Section 2(wa) but also statutorily recognised various rights of such victims at different stages of trial. {Para 24}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CRIMINAL APPEALS NO. 822-823 OF 2023 

ARISING OUT OF PETITIONS FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) NO. 11104-11105 OF 2022 

MS. X Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Coram: A.S. BOPANNA; J., HIMA KOHLI; J.

 March 17, 2023.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Whether stranger can move court for cancellation of bail?

 In totality of the circumstances, this Court is of the considered
opinion as under :
(i)The Investigating Officer is to take decision seeking
cancellation of bail and the grounds thereof on the basis of
material collected during investigation.
(ii)Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. does not envisage any right
upon any stranger to approach the Court for cancellation of
bail, a right which has been conferred only on the Investigating
Officer or under exceptional circumstances to the complainant.
(iii)Application of a stranger cannot be entertained by the Court
without any substantial set of facts and circumstances or
without sound principle of law to call upon the accused for
cancellation of bail who has been protected under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India except the authority empowered under
the Code of Criminal Procedure.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: August 11th, 2016
 CRL.M.C. 1094/2016
PRASHANT KUMAR UMRAO 
v
STATE & ANR 
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

Print Page

Whether bail granted to accused prosecuted for an offence under Wild life protection Act can be cancelled if it was granted without considering seriousness of offence?

One most important factor, which has not been
considered at all by the Additional Sessions Judge is of seriousness
of the crime alleged against the applicant. Seriousness of a crime is

not to be judged by referring to the punishment prescribed alone.
It must be gauged also by its enormity, its ramifications, its extent
and reach, its repercussions and impact on the society or larger
public interest. Crime alleged against the nonapplicant
by all
these parameters is very serious in nature. Prima facie, the
nonapplicant
has shown proclivity to deal in body parts of tiger,
the offence has transnational ramifications and above all has

irreversible adverse impact on the larger public interests.

This case, in my humble opinion, does not
lay down a principle that where the offence involved in the matter
is punishable upto 7 years of imprisonment and when custodial

interrogation is not required, the person accused of that offence
should be released on bail without considering other relevant
parameters. For exercising discretion regarding bail under Section
439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the parameters as discussed at
length in the earlier paragraphs would also have to be considered

together with the observations made in the case of Arnesh Kumar.


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.99 OF 2014

State of Maharashtra (Forest Department) Vs  Shri Suraj Pal s/o. Jagmohan @ Chhacha,


CORAM
: S.B. SHUKRE, J.
DATE : 12 th DECEMBER, 2014 .

Print Page