At the Stage of Framing Charge, Presumption Suffices; Suicide Note and Grave Suspicion Enough: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Charge Under Section 306 IPC 173 CrPC | Framing of Charge Marks End of Investigation—Complainant Cannot Reopen Probe Merely by Citing Police Lapses: Bombay High Court Recovery Alone Cannot Prove Guilt: Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Photos, Videos Must Go: Supreme Court Binds Warring Spouses to Clean Up Social Media in Matrimonial Settlement Standard for Bail Under Section 319 CrPC Is Higher Than Framing of Charge, But Short of Conviction: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Accused Summoned Mid-Trial State Cannot Arbitrarily Deny Subsidies to 'New Industrial Units' by Retrospectively Applying Expansion Caps: Supreme Court Companies Act | Offence Under Section 448 Is Covered Under Section 447: Supreme Court Bars Private Complaint Without SFIO Nod “See-To-It” Obligation Is Not A Guarantee Under Indian Law: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope Of Section 126 ICA In IBC Disputes Mere Employment of Litigant’s Relatives in Police or Court Doesn't Prove Judicial Bias: Supreme Court Sets Aside Transfer of Criminal Case Reserved Candidate Availing Relaxed Standards in Prelims Cannot Migrate to General Quota for Cadre Allocation: Supreme Court Mere Vesting Does Not Mean Possession: Supreme Court Rules ULC Proceedings Abated For Failure To Serve Mandatory Notice To Actual Occupants Contempt of Courts Act | Natural Justice in Administrative Action: Supreme Court Directs West Bengal Govt to Re-Adjudicate Teachers' Arrears Claims Live-In Relationship with Married Man Not a ‘Relationship in the Nature of Marriage’ Under Domestic Violence Act: Bombay High Court Applies Supreme Court Guidelines Income Tax Act | Substitution of Shares held as Stock-in-Trade upon Amalgamation constitutes Taxable Business Income if Commercially Realisable: Supreme Court Judges Cannot Enact Their Own Protocols During Bail Hearings: Supreme Court Sets Aside Sweeping Age Determination Directions In POCSO If There Is Knowledge That Injury Is Likely To Cause Death, But No Intention Falls Under Section 304 Part II:  Supreme Court High Court Ignored POCSO’s Statutory Rigour, Committed Grave Error in Granting Bail: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Gang-Rape Accused Section 22 HSA | Co-Heirs Have Statutory Right of Pre-Emption Even in Urban Property: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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