Supreme Court Mandates Notice to Victims in SC/ST Act Bail Proceedings: Hariram Bhambhi vs. Satyanarayan (29 October 2021)

Date of the Judgment: 29 October 2021
Citation: [Not Available in Source]
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and BV Nagarathna, J

Can a High Court grant bail to an accused under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, without notifying the victim or their family? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, emphasizing the mandatory nature of providing notice and a hearing to victims before granting bail. This judgment underscores the importance of victim participation in the criminal justice system, particularly in cases involving marginalized communities. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising of Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and BV Nagarathna, J.

Case Background

On 9 June 2018, Hariram Bhambhi (the appellant) filed a police report at Police Station Kishangarh, District Ajmer, regarding the death of his younger brother, Ram Niwas. The First Information Report (FIR No. 116/2018) was registered under Sections 302 (murder) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellant stated that his brother had gone out for labor work on 8 June 2018 and was later found dead. The police investigation led to the arrest of Satyanarayan (the first respondent) and others. Since the deceased belonged to a Scheduled Caste, offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were also added.

The first respondent’s initial bail application was rejected by the Sessions Court. Subsequently, he filed a second bail application before the Special Judge, SC/ST (Atrocities Prevention Cases) Ajmer, which was also rejected on 25 September 2019. The Special Judge noted that while some witnesses had been examined, crucial witnesses were still to be examined. The first respondent then appealed to the High Court of Rajasthan against the rejection of his second bail application.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The first respondent’s initial bail application was rejected by the Sessions Court. Subsequently, his second bail application was rejected by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Atrocities Prevention Cases) Ajmer on 25 September 2019. The Special Judge noted that while some witnesses had been examined, crucial witnesses were still to be examined. The first respondent then appealed to the High Court against the rejection of his second bail application. The High Court of Rajasthan, on 7 November 2019, granted bail to the first respondent without issuing any notice to the appellant (the complainant). The High Court order was based on the submission of the first respondent’s counsel that the deceased’s wife (PW.2) had stated that the deceased was murdered by his brother-in-law, Kishan Lal, for insurance money. The High Court did not provide any detailed reasoning for granting bail.

The appellant then filed an application before the High Court for cancellation of the bail granted to the first respondent, primarily on the ground that no notice was issued to him as mandated by Section 15A of the SC/ST Act. The Single Judge who had granted bail rejected the cancellation application, stating that since the appellant was being heard in the cancellation proceedings, the requirements of Section 15A were met. The High Court did not find any reason to recall its earlier order granting bail.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which was enacted to protect the constitutional rights of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Court focused specifically on Section 15A of the Act, which was introduced by the Amendment Act of 2015, effective from 26 January 2016. This section is titled “Rights of victims and witnesses” and aims to ensure that victims are not just passive spectators in the criminal justice system.

Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST Act states:
“A victim or his dependent shall have the right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any Court proceeding including any bail proceeding and the Special Public Prosecutor or the State Government shall inform the victim about any proceedings under this Act.”

Section 15A(5) of the SC/ST Act states:
“A victim or his dependent shall be entitled to be heard at any proceeding under this Act in respect of bail, discharge, release, parole, conviction or sentence of an accused or any connected proceedings or arguments and file written submission on conviction, acquittal or sentencing.”

The Court emphasized that these provisions mandate that victims or their dependents must be given notice of any court proceeding, including bail proceedings, and are entitled to be heard. The term “dependent” is defined under Section 2(bb) of the Act as:
“2(bb) “dependent” means the spouse, children, parents, brother and sister of the victim, who are dependent wholly or mainly on such victim for his support and maintenance;”

The Court noted that the provisions of Section 15A(3) and 15A(5) must be construed harmoniously, with the notice requirement facilitating the right to be heard. The Court also observed that the purpose of Section 15A is to protect the rights of victims and witnesses, who are often overlooked due to their weak social positions.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The High Court fundamentally violated Section 15A of the SC/ST Act by not issuing a notice to the appellant, who, as the complainant, had the right to be heard in any proceeding under the Act, especially bail proceedings.
• The appellant had previously been represented by counsel in an appeal against the rejection of the first bail application, which was later dismissed.
• The failure to issue a notice before granting bail cannot be rectified by hearing the appellant in a subsequent application for cancellation of bail.
• The High Court’s order granting bail was based solely on the statement of the deceased’s spouse, without considering the investigation report which prima facie implicated the first respondent.
• The investigation revealed the first respondent’s involvement in the murder, supported by CCTV footage, witness statements, and call data records.
• Call data records showed that the accused were in close contact with each other around the time of the murder and at the location of the crime.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The order granting bail was based on the deceased’s wife’s statement that her brother, Kishan Lal, committed the murder for insurance money, making the allegation primarily against Kishan Lal.
• If the Court finds that the appellant should have been heard before the grant of bail, the matter could be remanded to the High Court.
• The first respondent has not committed any act detrimental to his liberty since his release on bail.

The innovativeness of the argument of the appellant lies in emphasizing the mandatory nature of Section 15A of the SC/ST Act, highlighting the need for prior notice and hearing for victims before bail is granted, and arguing that a subsequent hearing cannot rectify the initial procedural lapse.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to the first respondent without issuing notice to the appellant under Section 15A of the SC/ST Act.
2. Whether the High Court was correct in holding that the requirements of Section 15A(3) and 15A(5) were complied with by hearing the appellant in the application for cancellation of bail.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases:

Legal Provisions:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Sunita Gandharva v. State of MP & Anr, 2020 SCC OnLine MP 2193* to highlight the purpose of the amendment inserting Section 15A, emphasizing victim-oriented approach and protection of victim’s rights.
• The Court relied on Hemal Ashwin Jain v. Union of India, R/Special Civil Application No. 6369 of 2020* to emphasize the mandatory nature of Section 15A(3) and the right of the victim to be heard at any bail proceedings.
• The Court followed the decisions in Ajeet Chaudhary v. State of UP, 2021 SCC OnLine All 417*, Basheer M. v. State of Kerala, 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 1675*, Marenna and Ors. v. The State & Ors., 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 1077*, and Abid v. State of Rajasthan, 2020 SCC OnLine Raj 2703* to support the proposition that the requirement of issuing notice under Section 15A(3) is mandatory.
• The Court relied on Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana, (2021) 6 SCC 230* to emphasize the considerations that govern the grant of bail and the importance of recording reasons by a judge.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the need to protect the rights of victims, particularly those belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Court emphasized the mandatory nature of Section 15A of the SC/ST Act, highlighting that victims have a right to be informed and heard before bail is granted to an accused. The Court was also critical of the High Court’s failure to provide reasons for granting bail and for not considering the seriousness of the offense and the role of the accused.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the following:

• The mandatory nature of Section 15A of the SC/ST Act, which requires prior notice to the victim or their dependent before a bail hearing.
• The importance of ensuring that victims are not mere spectators in the criminal justice system, particularly in cases involving marginalized communities.
• The need for courts to provide reasoned orders when granting bail, taking into account the seriousness of the offense and the role of the accused.
• The failure of the High Court to adhere to the principles of natural justice by not providing a hearing to the victim before granting bail.

The Court emphasized that the rights of victims cannot be overlooked and that the procedural safeguards provided by the SC/ST Act must be strictly followed. The Court’s reasoning was driven by the need to ensure that the constitutional rights of marginalized communities are protected.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that the High Court’s order was based on the deceased’s wife’s statement, but rejected it as a valid reason to bypass the mandatory requirements of Section 15A. The Court also considered the argument that the matter could be remanded back to the High Court but decided to set aside the bail order instead. The Court’s decision was reached by applying the law strictly and emphasizing the need to protect the rights of victims of caste-based atrocities.

The Supreme Court stated:
“Compliance with the principles of natural justice must be observed at every stage under the mandate of the statute.”

The Supreme Court also observed:
“The duty to record reasons cannot be obviated by recording submissions, followed by an omnibus “in the facts and circumstances” formula. Brief reasons which indicate the basis for granting bail are essential, for it is the reasons adduced by the court which indicate the basis of the order.”

Further, the Supreme Court held:
“There has been an evident breach of the statutory requirements embodied in sub- sections (3) and (5) of Section 15A in the present case.”

There was no minority opinion in this case. The two-judge bench was unanimous in their decision.

The implications for future cases are that High Courts and lower courts must now mandatorily issue notice to victims or their dependents before granting bail in cases under the SC/ST Act. This judgment underscores the importance of victim participation in the criminal justice system and ensures that the rights of victims are not overlooked. It also emphasizes the need for courts to provide reasoned orders when granting bail. This judgment has introduced a strict interpretation of Section 15A of the SC/ST Act, making it mandatory for courts to ensure that victims are heard before granting bail.

Key Takeaways

• Victims or their dependents must receive prior notice of any court proceeding, including bail hearings, under the SC/ST Act.
• Courts must provide an opportunity for victims or their dependents to be heard before granting bail.
• A subsequent hearing on cancellation of bail cannot cure the initial defect of not providing notice and a hearing.
• Courts must provide reasoned orders when granting bail, taking into account the seriousness of the offense and the role of the accused.
• This judgment reinforces the importance of victim participation in the criminal justice system, particularly in cases involving marginalized communities.

The potential future impact of this judgment is that it will likely lead to more stringent enforcement of the SC/ST Act, ensuring that victims’ rights are protected and that courts follow due process. It may also lead to a reduction in the number of bail orders that are granted without proper consideration of the victim’s perspective.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order granting bail to the first respondent and directed the first respondent to surrender into custody on or before 7 November 2021.

Specific Amendments Analysis

Not Applicable as there is no specific amendment discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that Section 15A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, mandates that victims or their dependents must be given prior notice and an opportunity to be heard before a court grants bail to an accused. This judgment clarifies the mandatory nature of Section 15A and ensures that the rights of victims are protected. This judgment has changed the previous position of law by emphasizing the mandatory nature of Section 15A and holding that a subsequent hearing cannot cure the initial defect of not providing notice and a hearing before granting bail.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Hariram Bhambhi vs. Satyanarayan & Anr. underscores the mandatory nature of Section 15A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Court held that victims or their dependents must be given prior notice and an opportunity to be heard before a court grants bail to an accused. The Court set aside the High Court’s order granting bail and directed the first respondent to surrender into custody. This judgment reinforces the importance of victim participation in the criminal justice system and ensures that the rights of marginalized communities are protected.

Category

Parent Category: Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

Child Categories:

• Section 15A, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
• Bail Proceedings
• Victim Rights
• Criminal Law

Parent Category: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

Child Categories:

• Section 173, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
• Bail

Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Categories:

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860

FAQ

Q: What is the main issue in the Hariram Bhambhi vs. Satyanarayan case?
A: The main issue is whether a victim or their family must be notified and heard before a court grants bail to an accused under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide regarding notice to victims in bail proceedings?
A: The Supreme Court held that it is mandatory to provide prior notice to the victim or their dependent and allow them to be heard before granting bail to an accused under the SC/ST Act.

Q: What is Section 15A of the SC/ST Act?
A: Section 15A of the SC/ST Act outlines the rights of victims and witnesses, including the right to be notified of court proceedings and to be heard, particularly in bail proceedings.

Q: Can a subsequent hearing on cancellation of bail cure the initial defect of not providing notice to the victim?
A: No, the Supreme Court held that a subsequent hearing on cancellation of bail cannot rectify the initial procedural lapse of not providing notice and a hearing to the victim before granting bail.

Q: What does the term “dependent” mean under the SC/ST Act?
A: “Dependent” includes the spouse, children, parents, brother, and sister of the victim, who are wholly or mainly dependent on the victim for support and maintenance.

Q: What was the High Court’s mistake in this case?
A: The High Court granted bail to the accused without issuing notice to the victim (complainant) and without providing a reasoned order, which was a violation of Section 15A of the SC/ST Act.

Q: What are the implications of this judgment for future cases?
A: This judgment makes it mandatory for courts to provide prior notice and a hearing to victims or their dependents before granting bail in cases under the SC/ST Act, reinforcing victim participation in the criminal justice system.

Q: What did the Supreme Court direct in this case?
A: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order granting bail and directed the accused to surrender into custody.

Q: What is the ratio decidendi of this case?
A: The ratio decidendi is that Section 15A of the SC/ST Act mandates that victims or their dependents must be given prior notice and an opportunity to be heard before a court grants bail to an accused.