Rajasthan High Court Directs State To Ensure That Proof Of Communication Of Pendency Of Bail Application Under SC/ST Act To Complainant Is Produced In Every Case
The Rajasthan High Court clarified that a notice under Section 15(A)(3) of the SC/ST Act is mandatory and not the presence of the victim during the proceedings.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court has directed the State to ensure that the Investigating Officers send proof of communication, such as SMS or WhatsApp messages, to the complainant about the pendency of bail application in respect of offences under the SC/ST Act, before deciding the bail application.
The Court dismissed the bail cancellation Application filed by the complainant, holding that there was compliance with Section 15(A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Act). The Court clarified that a notice under Section 15(A)(3) of the Act is mandatory, however, the presence of the victim during the course of the proceedings is not mandatory.
A Single Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand ordered, “This Court issues a general mandamus to the Director General of Police (DGP) and the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Rajasthan to instruct all the Investigating Officers/ the Station House Officers of all the Police Stations to the effect that henceforth, in all those Bail Applications (Criminal Appeals), which are submitted under SC/ ST Act or the offences, which have occurred before the enforcement of B.N.S.S., whenever the Court directs the Public Prosecutor to send information to the complainant/ victim/ aggrieved party they shall produce a proof/ screenshot of the message/ text message/ WhatsApp Message, on record, enabling the Court to pass appropriate orders, before deciding the Bail Application (Criminal Appeals) submitted by the accused person.”
Advocate Sandeep Sharma represented the Petitioner, while Government Advocate cum Additional Advocate General Rajesh Choudhary appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Complainant had sought cancellation of bail granted to the accused on the ground that he was not informed before the disposal of their bail applications. He argued that under Section 15(A) of the Act, it was mandatory to inform the victim before hearing bail applications. The Complainant contended that the notice was sent after bail was granted.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court noted, “In the instant case also, as per the notings in the register as well as the case diary indicate that the victim was informed about filing of the bail applications (Criminal Appeals) of both the accused persons on 08.10.2022 and 25.08.2022 respectively and thereafter, the bail applications (Criminal Appeals) of the accused-persons were decided by this Court on 28.11.2022. Meaning thereby that the compliance of Section 15(A) was made prior to deciding their bail applications (Criminal Appeals).”
The Bench clarified that a “Notice under Section 15(A)(3) of the Act is mandatory in nature, however, presence of the victim during the course of the proceedings is not mandatory. On receipt of notice, it is left to the choice of the victim to participate or not to participate in the proceedings.”
Consequently, the Court held, “In view of the above, this Court finds no merit and substance in these two applications for cancellation of bail and the same are hereby rejected.”
Before dismissing the Application, the Court observed, “The process of law cannot move like a bullock cart pace or snail's pace in the age of Information and Technology. The Station House Officer and the Investigating Officer of all the Police Stations are required to be upgraded with the latest technological developments. Fruits of technology have to be put in the service of the people. In the legal process, the technology can play critical role in effectuating the fundamental rights of the citizens, in particular, and in upholding the process of law, in general.”
The Court further directed the appointment of a Nodal Officer in each district to supervise the staff entrusted to discharge the duty of delivering and effecting service of notices on the victims.
Accordingly, the High Court rejected the Application.
Cause Title: Ramesh Bairwa v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 20/2023)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Sandeep Sharma and Krishan Kumar Yadav
Respondents: Government Advocate cum Additional Advocate General Rajesh Choudhary; Deputy Government Advocate cum Additional Advocate General Manvendra Singh Choduhary; Advocates Vinod Sharma, Manish Gupta, Sameer Sharma and Neeraj Sharma