Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal

Victims Not Mandatory Parties in Bail Applications: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Rights of Accused

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Rajasthan High Court in the case [2023:RJ-JP:39252-DB] clarified the role of victims in bail proceedings. The court categorically stated that victims are not necessary parties in bail applications under Sections 437, 438, or 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), a decision that could significantly impact criminal proceedings across the state.

The judgment stemmed from the reference question, "Whether In all the bail applications under Sections 437, 438 or 439 Cr.P.C., the complainant/first informant/victim defined under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C. is necessary party and necessarily be impleaded as party respondent?” This question was raised due to conflicting views in previous cases regarding the necessity of victim’s involvement in bail hearings.

In their decision, the Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Bhansali and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Bhandari undertook a detailed examination of the relevant sections of the Cr.P.C. The court observed, “There is no provision provided in the statute whereby the victim is required to be made a party-respondent in bail applications.” This observation highlights the court’s emphasis on adhering strictly to the legislative intent and statutory provisions.

The judgment also underscored the Importance of balancing the rights of the accused with those of the victim. The court noted that impleading victims in all bail matters could lead to unnecessary delays in the judicial process, potentially infringing upon the accused’s right to a speedy trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Furthermore, the court addressed the issue of victim confidentiality, particularly in cases of sexual offenses. Citing the Supreme Court’s directives in Nipun Saxena Versus Union of India, the court reiterated the importance of maintaining the anonymity of victims to prevent any social ostracization or discrimination.

Date of Judgment: 19 December 2023

POOJA GURJAR & ORS. VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN

 

Latest Legal News