9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 1519 - SC - Indian LawsSeeking enlargement of bail - Whether a 'victim' as defined Under Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is entitled to be heard at the stage of adjudication of bail application of an Accused? - overlooking relevant considerations while passing the impugned order granting bail to the Respondent-Accused - HELD THAT - It cannot be gainsaid that the right of a victim under the amended Code of Criminal Procedure are substantive, enforceable, and are another facet of human rights. The victim's right, therefore, cannot be termed or construed restrictively like a brutum fulmen - A 'victim' within the meaning of Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be asked to await the commencement of trial for asserting his/her right to participate in the proceedings. He/She has a legally vested right to be heard at every step post the occurrence of an offence. Such a 'victim' has unbridled participatory rights from the stage of investigation till the culmination of the proceedings in an appeal or revision. It is worth mentioning that, the complainant in FIR No. 219 of 2021, as well as the present Appellants, are close relatives of the farmers who have lost their lives in the incident dated 03.10.2021 - an application seeking a rehearing on the ground that the 'victims' could not participate in the proceedings was also moved but it appears that the same was not considered by the High Court while granting bail to the Respondent-Accused - in the present case, the 'victims' have been denied a fair and effective hearing at the time of granting bail to the Respondent-Accused. Whether the High Court overlooked relevant considerations? - HELD THAT - Power to grant bail Under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, is one of wide amplitude. A High Court or a Sessions Court, as the case may be, are bestowed with considerable discretion while deciding an application for bail. But, as has been held by this Court on multiple occasions, this discretion is not unfettered. On the contrary, the High Court or the Sessions Court must grant bail after the application of a judicial mind, following well-established principles, and not in a cryptic or mechanical manner. While a Court may examine prima facie issues, including any reasonable grounds whether the Accused committed an offence or the severity of the offence itself, an extensive consideration of merits which has the potential to prejudice either the case of the prosecution or the defence, is undesirable. It is thus deemed appropriate to outrightly clarify that neither have considered the merits of the case nor are we inclined to comment on the evidence collected by the SIT in the present case. The High Court has taken into account several irrelevant considerations, whilst simultaneously ignoring judicial precedents and established parameters for grant of bail. It has been ruled on numerous occasions that a F.I.R. cannot be treated as an encyclopaedia of events. While the allegations in the F.I.R., that the Accused used his firearm and the subsequent post mortem and injury reports may have some limited bearing, there was no legal necessity to give undue weightage to the same. Moreover, the observations on merits of a case when the trial has yet to commence, are likely to have an impact on the outcome of the trial proceedings - the order under challenge does not conform to the relevant considerations. Whether interference is warranted by this Court? - HELD THAT -No Accused can be subjected to unending detention pending trial, especially when the law presumes him to be innocent until proven guilty. Even where statutory provisions expressly bar the grant of bail, such as in cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, this Court has expressly ruled that after a reasonably long period of incarceration, or for any other valid reason, such stringent provisions will melt down, and cannot be measured over and above the right of liberty guaranteed Under Article 21 of the Constitution - this Court on account of the factors like (i) irrelevant considerations having impacted the impugned order granting bail; (ii) the High Court exceeding its jurisdiction by touching upon the merits of the case; (iii) denial of victims' right to participate in the proceedings; and (iv) the tearing hurry shown by the High Court in entertaining or granting bail to the Respondent/Accused; can rightfully cancel the bail, without depriving the Respondent-Accused of his legitimate right to seek enlargement on bail on relevant considerations. Matter remanded back to the High Court - High Court shall decide the bail application afresh - appeal disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Victim's right to be heard at the stage of adjudication of bail application. 2. Whether the High Court overlooked relevant considerations while granting bail to the Respondent-Accused. 3. Whether the High Court's order granting bail is palpably illegal and warrants interference by the Supreme Court. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Victim's Right to be Heard Analysis: The judgment acknowledges the evolution of the rights of victims in criminal proceedings. Historically, victims had no participatory rights in the adjudicatory process. The UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for the Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, 1985, and similar international frameworks have influenced the recognition of victims' rights. In India, amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) have recognized these rights. Section 2(wa) of Cr.P.C. defines a 'victim' and grants them substantive, enforceable rights, including the right to be heard at various stages of the trial, including bail hearings. The Supreme Court emphasized that victims' rights are independent and not auxiliary to the State's rights. Victims have the right to participate from the investigation stage to the culmination of the proceedings. The High Court failed to acknowledge these rights, particularly when the victims' counsel was disconnected during online proceedings and their application for rehearing was not considered. The Court held that the victims were denied a fair and effective hearing, thus answering this issue in the affirmative. Issue 2: Whether the High Court Overlooked Relevant Considerations Analysis: The Supreme Court reiterated that the power to grant bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is discretionary but must be exercised judiciously. The High Court's order granting bail was found to be influenced by irrelevant considerations and lacked adherence to established principles for bail. The High Court focused on the absence of firearm injuries and the provocation of the driver, ignoring the severity and nature of the offense, the potential impact on the trial, and the societal implications. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's order was myopic and did not conform to the relevant considerations such as the gravity of the offense, severity of punishment, likelihood of the accused fleeing, and potential tampering with evidence. The High Court's observations on the merits of the case were premature and likely to impact the trial. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the High Court overlooked relevant considerations, answering this issue in the affirmative. Issue 3: Whether the High Court's Order is Palpably Illegal and Warrants Interference Analysis: Given the findings on the first two issues, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's order dated 10.02.2022 (corrected on 14.02.2022) was unsustainable and set it aside. The bail bonds of the Respondent-Accused were canceled, and he was directed to surrender within a week. However, the Supreme Court also recognized the Respondent-Accused's right to seek bail and remitted the matter back to the High Court for fresh adjudication of the bail application, ensuring a fair hearing for the victims. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court should decide the bail application on merits, giving adequate opportunity to the victims. If the victims cannot engage a private counsel, the High Court must provide legal aid at the State's expense. The Court also highlighted the need for the State authorities to ensure adequate protection for witnesses and the families of the deceased. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order granting bail and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication, ensuring the victims' right to be heard and adherence to relevant considerations for bail. The High Court is directed to decide the bail application expeditiously, preferably within three months, without expressing any opinion on the facts or merits of the case.
|
