Complainant Or Dependents Must Be Issued Notice And Heard When Accused Seeks Bail Under SC/ST Act: J&K High Court

Shedding light on the right of a victim under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has asserted that a complainant or their dependent must be issued notice and heard when an accused seeks bail under the Act.Citing provisions of the Act a bench of Justice M. A Chowdhary observed, “On a harmonious reading of both the Sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 15-A of the Act, it can be safely concluded that on filing of a bail application for being released in a case under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act, the complainant or his dependent is to be issued a notice or is required to be heard at the time of consideration of bail plea” While setting aside the bail previously granted to one Rajesh Singh, an Inspector accused of caste-based offenses the court emphasized that the complainant's procedural rights are central to upholding justice in such sensitive cases.Case Background:The case stemmed from a complaint filed by Anu Bala, an Assistant Director in the Fisheries Department, alleging that Singh, her subordinate, had not only subjected her to caste-based abuses but had also acted inappropriately. Her complaint led to the registration of FIR under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act at Police Station Nagrota, Jammu. The trial court later granted Singh bail, a decision Bala contested, alleging procedural irregularities and misuse of the judicial process by Singh.Bala's counsel argued that Singh had resorted to “forum shopping” by submitting bail applications to two separate courts on the same day, withholding the fact that his initial application was already pending before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge. This, she contended, enabled Singh to secure bail by withholding material facts. In defense, Singh's counsel maintained that the bail was obtained legitimately and within legal parameters.Court's Observations: Justice Chowdhary's observations centered on ensuring procedural safeguards in cases under the SC/ST Act. He affirmed that on filing of a bail application for being released in a case under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the complainant or his dependent is to be issued a notice or is required to be heard at the time of consideration of bail plea.In view of this lapse the court noted that the trial court's failure to provide Bala an opportunity to contest the bail plea violated statutory requirements, compromising her rights as a complainant.Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Hariram Bhambi v. Satyanarayan (2021), to emphasise that atrocities against SC/ST individuals persist and that statutory safeguards are imperative the court opined, “Atrocities against members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are not a thing of the past and they continue to be a reality in the society even today. Hence, the statutory provisions, which have been enacted by the Parliament as a measure of protecting the constitutional rights of persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, must be complied with and enforced conscientiously”Justice Chowdhary critiqued the lower court's handling of the case, stating, “If it cannot be described as a travesty of justice, however, it certainly amounts to undermining the fairness of justice, when the Sessions Court presided over by a very Senior Judicial Officer had observed the mandatory statutory provisions provided under Sections (3) and (5) of Section 15-A of the Atrocities Act in utter breach and granted bail to the accused without issuance of Notice to the victim/complainant and without affording her opportunity of being heard.”Further, the court took strong exception to Singh's approach, identifying it as an example of “forum shopping or bench hunting,” noting that both bail applications were filed on the same day. Singh had moved one application before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, who deferred proceedings, while simultaneously approaching the Additional Sessions Court, which granted him interim bail. Justice Chowdhary noted that the accused had withdrawn his earlier application when in his subsequent application he had already been granted bail and remarked, “This not only speaks about the conduct of the respondent as accused and litigant, but also of the Court, which had assigned his two applications on the same date to two different Courts”In light of these observations the court quashed the impugned bail order and directed Singh to surrender while permitting him to reapply for bail under due process. The court ordered that the judgment be circulated to all Special Courts handling SC/ST Act cases in Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. Furthermore, a copy was sent to the State Legal Services Authorities, urging the organization of seminars and legal literacy initiatives to raise public awareness about SC/ST Act rights.Case Title: Anu Bala Vs Rajesh SinghCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 298Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

Complainant Or Dependents Must Be Issued Notice And Heard When Accused Seeks Bail Under SC/ST Act: J&K High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags