In a significant ruling reinforcing the rights of victims, the Supreme Court of India has declared it mandatory to grant a hearing to the victim when considering bail for an accused under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The apex court held that failure to provide this opportunity renders the bail order legally unsustainable.
Statutory Right to be Heard is Mandatory
A bench comprising Justices B V Nagarathna and R Mahadevan interpreted Section 15A(5) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. The bench clarified that the provision makes it compulsory for the victim or their legal counsel to be given a meaningful opportunity of being heard during bail proceedings. It further stated that bail can be cancelled if this section is violated.
The court emphasized that the provision incorporates the principle of audi alteram partem (hear the other side) specifically for victims under this Act. "The statutory right to be heard presupposes that the victim is made aware of the proceedings and is not excluded therefrom," the bench observed.
Opportunity, Not a Guarantee of Outcome
The bench provided a crucial clarification, stating that the provision guarantees an opportunity to be heard, not a right to a favourable outcome. It does not mandate a detailed adjudication of every objection raised by the victim. The statutory requirement is satisfied once the victim is notified, allowed to participate, and permitted to place their objections on record.
"Once the victim has been notified, permitted to participate, and allowed to place objections on record, the statutory mandate stands satisfied," the order stated.
Court Upholds Precedent, Quashes Bail on Other Grounds
Referring to earlier judgments, the Supreme Court approved the view taken by the Gujarat High Court in the Hemal Ashwin Jain case. That verdict had categorically held that failing to hear the victim in bail proceedings constitutes a failure of justice, making the order legally untenable. The top court affirmed that the victim or their dependent is an active stakeholder in proceedings under the SC/ST Act and compliance with Sections 15A(3) and 15A(5) is mandatory.
The ruling came on a plea seeking the cancellation of bail for an accused. While the bench found no violation of Section 15A(5) in this specific instance, as the victim was heard, it nonetheless quashed the bail order granted by the Madras High Court. It did so on the ground that the High Court had failed to consider the criminal antecedents of the accused.
The Supreme Court noted that the High Court order suffered from fatal infirmities as it ignored a crucial fact: the accused's bail in another case had been cancelled after the death of a material witness while he was out on bail. This criminal history was expressly presented before the High Court and recorded in its judgment, but no conclusion was drawn from it, leading the top court to set aside the bail.
