2021 (10) TMI 1443 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking enlargement on bail - application for cancellation of bail before the High Court was moved principally on the ground that no notice was issued to the appellant under sub-section (3) of Section 15A of the SC/ST Act, resultingly no opportunity to be heard was provided under sub-section (5) of Section 15A - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - Before the High Court granted bail by its order dated 7 November 2019, the final report had been submitted on 6 September 2018. The final report under Section 173 CrPC contains a detailed analysis of the call data records of the accused who were in continuous contact with each other, as well as of their location in close proximity to the date and time of the incident. The bail order does not make any mention of factors that are relevant for the grant of bail, which are (i) the seriousness and gravity of the offence; and (ii) the role attributed to the first respondent in the commission of the crime. In this backdrop, the order of the High Court in granting bail cannot pass muster. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant had filed an application S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Cancellation Application No. 21/2020 seeking its recall. The Single Judge of the High Court by the impugned order dated 8 June 2021 simply reiterated that the bail was granted on the basis of the statement of the wife of the deceased, PW.2, once again failing to show any engagement with the considerations that govern the grant of bail. The impugned order of the Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan dated 8 June 2021 in S.B. Crl Bail Cancellation Application No. 21/2020 is set aside - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Non-compliance with Section 15A of the SC/ST Act.
2. Considerations for granting bail.
3. Role of the first respondent in the commission of the crime.
4. Procedural lapses and the rights of victims under the SC/ST Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-compliance with Section 15A of the SC/ST Act:
The appellant argued that the High Court failed to issue notice to him under sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 15A of the SC/ST Act before granting bail to the first respondent. Section 15A mandates that victims or their dependents must receive reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any court proceeding, including bail proceedings, and must be given the right to be heard. The Supreme Court highlighted that the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (5) are mandatory and must be scrupulously observed. The failure to issue such notice cannot be cured by subsequently providing a hearing during the bail cancellation proceedings. The High Court's decision to grant bail without issuing notice to the appellant was thus in clear violation of the statutory requirements and principles of natural justice.

2. Considerations for Granting Bail:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court's order granting bail lacked adequate reasoning and failed to consider relevant factors such as the seriousness and gravity of the offense and the role attributed to the first respondent. The High Court's order merely recorded the submissions of the counsel for the first respondent and did not provide any substantial reasoning apart from noting the opposition by the public prosecutor. The Supreme Court reiterated that the duty to record reasons is essential for judicial accountability and transparency, ensuring that the decision meets objective standards of reason and justice.

3. Role of the First Respondent in the Commission of the Crime:
The final report submitted on 6 September 2018 revealed the complicity of the first respondent in the murder of the deceased. The investigation indicated that the first respondent, along with two co-accused, participated in the murder, supported by CCTV footage and call data records. The call data records showed continuous contact among the accused and their presence at the crime scene. The High Court's order granting bail did not address these critical pieces of evidence, undermining the seriousness of the charges against the first respondent.

4. Procedural Lapses and the Rights of Victims under the SC/ST Act:
The Supreme Court underscored the importance of safeguarding the rights of victims of caste-based atrocities, who often face significant hurdles in the criminal justice system. The SC/ST Act aims to protect the constitutional rights of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, providing them with a statutory right to participate actively in the criminal proceedings. The Court noted that procedural lapses, such as the failure to issue notice to the victim or their dependents, exacerbate the challenges faced by marginalized communities in accessing justice.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order dated 7 November 2019 granting bail to the first respondent, citing non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 15A of the SC/ST Act and the lack of adequate reasoning in the bail order. The first respondent was directed to surrender into custody on or before 7 November 2021. The Court's observations were made solely for the purpose of considering the grant of bail and would not affect the merits of the case.