Supreme Court of India
Digital Supreme Court Reports
The Official Law Report Fortnightly ISSN: 3048-4839 (Online)
Home
Full Text

HARIRAM BHAMBHI vs. SATYANARAYANA AND ORS

SCR Citation: [2021] 8 S.C.R. 855
Year/Volume: 2021/ Volume 8
Date of Judgment: 29 October 2021
Petitioner: HARIRAM BHAMBHI
Disposal Nature: Appeal Allowed
Neutral Citation: 2021 INSC 701
Judgment Delivered by: Honble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
Respondent: SATYANARAYANA AND ORS
Case Type: CRIMINAL APPEAL /1278/2021
Order/Judgment: Judgment
1. Headnote

SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: ss.15A(3) and 15A(5) – Rights of victims – Notice under s.15A not issued to victim/ dependents while hearing bail application of accused – Effect of – Held: Sub-sections (3) and (5) of s.15A specifically make the victim or their dependent an active stakeholder in the criminal proceedings – These provisions enable a member of the marginalized caste to effectively pursue a case and counteract the effects of defective investigations – Sub-section (3) confers a right to a prior notice, this being evident from the use of the expression “reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any court proceeding including any bail proceeding” – Sub-section (5) provides for a right to be heard to the victim or to a dependent – The provisions of sub-section (3) which stipulate the requirement of notice and of sub-section (5) which confers a right to be heard must be construed harmoniously – The defect in not issuing notice to the victim or their dependent and depriving them of the opportunity to be heard in the concerned proceedings (for grant of bail) cannot be cured by providing them a hearing in a proceeding that arose subsequently (for cancellation of bail) – Compliance with the principles of natural justice must be observed at every stage under the mandate of the statute. SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: s.15A – Undue delay in issuing notice to the victim – Held: Sub-section (3) of s.15A provides that a reasonable and timely notice must be issued to the victim or their dependent – This would entail that the notice is served upon victims or their dependents at the first or earliest possible instance – If undue delay is caused in the issuance of notice, the victim, or as the case may be, their dependents, would remain uninformed of the progress made in the case and it would prejudice their rights to effectively oppose the defense of the accused – Itwould also ultimately delay the bail proceedings or the trial, affecting the rights of the accused as well. Bail: Duty of court while granting bail – Considerations while granting bail – In the instant case, High Court held that it was just and expedient to release the first respondent on bail “keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case” – The bail order did not mention 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 – Thus, the order of the High Court in granting bail cannot pass muster – 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 – Judgment/Order – Reasoned order – SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: Object of enactment – Discussed.

2. Case referred
3. Act
  • Scheduled Castes And Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989)
4. Keyword
  • SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
5. Equivalent citation
    Citation(s) 2021 AIR 5610 = 2021 (11) JT 4 = 2021 (11) Suppl. JT 4 = 2021 (13) SCALE 45