Supreme Court
NEW DELHI: Supreme Court has said it is mandatory to grant a hearing to the victim while deciding bail to an accused under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, failing which the bail would be deemed legally unsustainable. Interpreting Section 15A(5) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and R Mahadevan said the provision makes it compulsory that the victim or their counsel must be afforded a meaningful opportunity of being heard while considering a bail application and bail can be cancelled on the ground of violation of this section.Casteist violence bail clause not right to favourable outcome: SC The bench clarified that the provision guarantees an opportunity to be heard, not a right to a favourable outcome or to a detailed adjudication of every objection raised by the victim. “Once the victim has been notified, permitted to participate, and allowed to place objections on record, the statutory mandate stands satisfied,” it said. “It is beyond cavil that section 15A(5) incorporates the principle of audi alteram partem (hear the other side) for victims under the SC/ST (POA) Act. Where such a right is conferred, the court must provide the victim or their dependent an opportunity of audience, either personally or through counsel, including the special public prosecutor. The statutory right to be heard presupposes that the victim is made aware of the proceedings and is not excluded therefrom,” the bench said. Referring to earlier verdicts of SC, the bench said, “The court approved the view taken by Gujarat HC in Hemal Ashwin Jain case which categorically held that failure to provide the victim an opportunity of being heard in bail proceedings constitutes a failure of justice, rendering the order legally unsustainable. This court concluded that the victim or dependent is an active stakeholder in proceedings under the SC/ ST (POA) Act and that compliance with Sections 15A(3) and 15A(5) is mandatory”. The court passed the order on a plea seeking cancellation of bail of an accused. Though the bench said that there was no violation of Section 15A(5) as the victim was given hearing, it, however, quashed the bail order of Madras HC on the ground that the criminal antecedent of the accused was not considered by HC. The top court said the high court order suffers from fatal infirmities as it ignored that the bail for the accused in another case was cancelled after the death of a material witness when he was out on bail. The criminal antecedents of the accused were expressly placed before HC and were recorded in the impugned judgment but HC failed to draw any conclusion from them, it said.
