Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Seniority Must Be Determined From Date Of Substantive Appointment, Not Ad-Hoc Service: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suppression Of Adverse Facts Strikes At Root Of Equitable Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Denies Injunction In HUF Property Dispute

Mandatory Victim Notice for Bail in SC & ST Act Cases Non-Negotiable: Delhi HC Sets Aside Bail for Non-Compliance

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court set aside a bail order for non-compliance with the mandatory notice requirements under the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The court, led by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Chawla, emphasized the critical need to adhere to the procedural norms laid down in the Act, particularly regarding the victim’s right to be heard in bail proceedings.

The judgment centered around the procedural imperatives under Sections 15A(3) and 15A(5) of the SC & ST Act. These sections mandate providing reasonable notice of bail proceedings to the victim and ensuring their right to be heard. The crux of the legal issue was whether the bail granted to the respondent without adhering to these provisions could stand judicial scrutiny.

The appeal, filed under Section 14A(2) of the SC & ST Act by the alleged victim, challenged an order granting bail to the respondent in a case involving offences under the IPC and SC & ST Act. The appellant contended that the order was passed without serving notice of the bail application, thus violating Sections 15A(3) and 15A(5) of the SC & ST Act.

The court, referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Hariram Bhambhi v. Satyanarayan & Anr., noted that the absence of notice to the appellant and the opportunity to be heard rendered the bail order liable to be set aside. Justice Navin Chawla observed, “Compliance with sub-section (3) and (5) of Section 15A of the SC & ST Act is mandatory in nature, and the bail granted in contravention thereof is liable to be set aside only on that ground.” The court further remarked on the continued reality of atrocities against SC and ST communities, underscoring the importance of strict adherence to the statutory protections afforded to them.

The High Court set aside the impugned bail order due to the procedural lapses identified. The bail application was remanded back for reconsideration by the Special Judge, with explicit directions to comply with the procedural requirements and provide an opportunity for the appellant to be heard. However, the respondent was granted temporary relief, not to be taken into custody for 15 days, subject to the Special Judge’s orders on the renewed bail application.

Date of Decision: 14th February 2024

 X vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

 

Latest Legal News