Failure to Notify Victim Before Granting Bail Defeats the Statutory Scheme of SC/ST Act – Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Bail

“No notice was issued to the petitioner/complainant or any victim/aggrieved person… Therefore, the impugned order has been passed in the teeth of Section 15A of the SC/ST Act” – In a significant pronouncement Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the bail granted to an accused in a murder case involving offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi held that the failure to serve mandatory notice to the victim or their dependents before granting bail renders the bail order illegal and contrary to the mandate of Section 15A of the Act.

The ruling came in response to a criminal revision petition filed by the de facto complainant challenging the bail order dated 11.02.2025, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar, in favour of one Vishal @ Vicky Sodhi, an accused in a case involving heinous charges including murder, criminal conspiracy, armed assault, and atrocities against a member of a Scheduled Caste.

The High Court observed that sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 15A of the SC/ST Act are not procedural niceties, but binding statutory requirements which ensure that the voice of the victim is heard and respected during critical stages of criminal prosecution such as bail, discharge, or parole.

“Right of the Victim to Participate in Bail Proceedings Is Not a Charity, It Is the Law” – Court Relies on Supreme Court’s Mandate in Hariram Bhambhi

Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi emphatically relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hariram Bhambhi v. Satyanarayan & Anr., 2021 (4) RCR (Criminal) 629, to reaffirm the inviolable nature of the victim’s rights under the SC/ST Act. Quoting the apex court, the High Court noted:

“We find ourselves in agreement with the proposition and hold that sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 15A are mandatory in nature.”

The judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge granting bail was found to have completely ignored the requirement of issuing notice to the complainant or any of the victims, as mandated by Section 15A(3), which states:

“A victim or his dependent shall have the right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any Court proceeding including any bail proceeding…”

Further, the statutory right under Section 15A(5) to be heard at such proceedings was also violated.

The High Court underlined the importance of this requirement in its own words, observing:

“A perusal of the aforementioned order dated 07.02.2025 as also the impugned order dated 11.02.2025 granting bail… would reveal that no notice was issued to the petitioner/complainant-Rajinder Kumar or any victim/aggrieved person. Therefore, apparently, the impugned order… has been passed in the teeth of Section 15A of the Act.”

Eyewitness-Injured Complainant Denied Right to Oppose Bail in Heinous SC/ST Offence

The FIR, registered on 16.04.2022 at Police Station Sector 17, HUDA, Jagadhri, invoked serious charges under Sections 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 506, 379-B, 120-B, 201 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 25 of the Arms Act, and Section 3 of the SC/ST Act. The complainant, Mohit Sharma, was not only the de facto informant but also an injured eyewitness to the violent assault that allegedly led to the death of a Scheduled Caste victim.

During the investigation, the accused Vishal @ Vicky Sodhi was arrested on 10.02.2023, and on the basis of his disclosure, several weapons and live ammunition were recovered.

Despite the gravity of the offences and the complainant’s status as a victim and key eyewitness, the Additional Sessions Judge entertained and granted bail on 11.02.2025—within four days of filing the application—without any notice to the complainant or his dependents.

Court Criticises Procedural Lapses, Cancels Bail and Orders Surrender

The High Court noted that on 07.02.2025, the Sessions Court issued notice only to the State through the Public Prosecutor, and no steps were taken to notify the victim as per the mandate of Section 15A. This lapse, the Court held, vitiated the entire bail order. Justice Bedi observed:

“The impugned order dated 11.02.2025 has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the de facto victim or his dependents in clear violation of Section 15-A… Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.”

The argument by the counsel for the accused that there had been no post-bail misconduct was rejected, with the Court stressing that the violation of procedural rights under Section 15A itself justified cancellation.

Accordingly, the Court passed the following directions:

“The impugned order dated 11.02.2025 granting bail to respondent No.2 – Vishal @ Vicky Sodhi is set aside. He is directed to surrender before the Jail Authorities concerned forthwith.”

It also directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jagadhri, to ensure immediate compliance and custody of the accused.

A Clear Message – Victims Cannot Be Sidelined in Bail Hearings Under SC/ST Act

This judgment sends an unequivocal message to the lower judiciary and prosecuting agencies that compliance with victim rights under the SC/ST Act is not optional. Courts must ensure that victims or their dependents are not only notified but also given a meaningful opportunity to be heard before bail is granted in atrocities cases.

By quashing the bail order and reiterating the Supreme Court’s binding interpretation, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has strengthened the procedural safeguards meant to uphold the dignity, participation, and protection of victims belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi’s ruling underscores the spirit of victim-centric justice embedded in the SC/ST Act, reminding all stakeholders in the criminal justice system that “access to justice” begins with “right to be heard.”

Date of Decision: 16 September 2025