LI Network
Published on: October 15, 2023 at 18:43 IST
The Karnataka High Court has emphasized that the denial of a victim’s right to participate in the proceedings of the accused can lead to the rightful cancellation of the accused’s bail under Section 439(1A) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
In a recent case, the Court allowed a Criminal Petition filed by the Informant seeking the cancellation of bail granted by the Trial Court. It highlighted that the responsibility to inform the victim about the proceedings falls on the Court or the Prosecution, and failure to comply with this provision can ultimately affect the accused.
Justice S.Vishwajith Shetty referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in Jagajeet Singh’s case, stating that denying the victim’s participation in the proceedings could be a valid reason to cancel bail granted to the accused. Even if the obligation to have the informant or their authorized representative present during the bail application hearing lies with the Court and the Prosecution, the consequences of non-compliance fall on the accused.
Therefore, various High Courts have issued guidelines for the effective implementation of the 2018 amendment to Cr.PC, the POCSO Act, and its associated rules.
In the case that led to this decision, a Criminal Petition was filed to cancel bail granted to the Second Respondent. The case involved offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The Informant and the Second Respondent were acquainted, with the latter working as a warden in the Social Welfare Department. The Second Respondent had made advances towards the Informant, who refused due to being a minor. Subsequently, the Second Respondent sexually misbehaved with her and threatened her. These incidents resulted in a legal battle.
The Court cited legal principles established by the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court, emphasizing the fundamental importance of the victim’s participation in legal proceedings. The denial of this participation can be a valid reason for revoking bail granted to an accused.
The Court held that it is the Court’s duty to ensure the victim’s right to be heard throughout the legal process, including bail proceedings.
To facilitate this, the Court issued specific directions, such as notifying the accused or their advocate about the requirement to inform the informant/victim when applying for bail. Even if the informant/victim is not impleaded in the proceedings, the Court should ensure that they are informed about the date of the bail application hearing and their right to legal assistance.
If the prosecution is unable to locate the informant/victim, a status report should be filed with reasons, and the court can proceed with the bail application. In cases involving minors, notice should be issued to the parents/guardians or authorized representatives rather than making the minor informant/victim a party to the proceedings.
Ultimately, the Court allowed the Petition and set aside the impugned order, emphasizing the significance of ensuring the victim’s rights in legal proceedings.
