Section 15A SC-ST Act Guarantees Opportunity To Be Heard, Not A Right To Favourable Outcome Of Every Objection Raised By Victim: Supreme Court

​The Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan held, "Thus, it is beyond cavil that Section 15A(5) incorporates the principle of audi alteram partem for victims under the SC/ST (POA) Act. Where such a right is conferred, the Court must provide the victim or their dependent an opportunity of audience, either personally or through counsel, including the Special Public Prosecutor. The statutory right to be heard presupposes that the victim is made aware of the proceedings and is not excluded therefrom...At the same time, the scope of Section 15A(5) must be correctly understood. The provision guarantees an opportunity to be heard, not a right to a favourable outcome or to a detailed adjudication of every objection raised by the victim. Once the victim has been notified, permitted to participate, and allowed to place objections on record, the statutory mandate stands satisfied."

AOR Dr Ram Sankar appeared on behalf of the Appellant, whereas AOR Sabarish Subramanian appeared for the Respondents.

Factual Background

The Appellant, along with his friends, was brutally assaulted by the Respondent-Accused and others using deadly weapons. During the assault, the Appellant, a member of the Scheduled Caste community, was subjected to caste-based abuse. Pursuant to the same, an FIR was filed by the Appellant under Sections 147, 148, 447, 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 307, and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602 and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 against the Respondent-accused. The Respondent-accused were enlarged on bail, and the final report was filed by the investigating authorities. It was alleged by the Appellant that the progress of the trial was hindered by the Respondent-accused.

The High Court, vide impugned order, granted bail to the Respondent-Accused and directed the Trial Court to have a joint trial of the two cases pending against the Accused persons. Hence, the Appellant filed the present appeal.

Contention of the parties

The Appellant highlighted a pattern of conduct that, while on bail for a previous instance of caste-based violence, the Respondent-accused allegedly orchestrated a premeditated, daylight murder of a key eyewitness, Suresh, leading to a second case.

The Appellant also submitted that the High Court failed to account for this "proven history of witness elimination" and the previous cancellation of their bail due to intimidation. Furthermore, the Appellant assailed the High Court’s directive to conduct a joint trial for both crimes, asserting that the two incidents are distinct and that clubbing them is legally impermissible.

Per Contra, the Respondent-Accused submitted that the prayer to cancel bail is rooted in mala fide intentions and personal vendetta rather than legal merit. They contended that the Appellant is a member of a "land mafia" seeking retaliation against the Accused. The defence asserted that the criminal charges were "falsely foisted" to silence this activism, even suggesting that the murder of the witness was orchestrated by the appellant’s own group to implicate the accused. Emphasizing that the accused have no prior criminal records and have already suffered prolonged incarceration without the trial even commencing, the Respondent-Accused said that 13 of 16 Accused are already out on bail without any reported violations.

Observations of the Court

With regard to the issue whether the High Court was correct while ordering a joint trial for two distinct offences, the Court held, "The determination of whether a joint or separate trial should be conducted lies primarily within the domain of the trial Court to be exercised at the threshold of trial upon a reasoned assessment of prejudice, convenience, and judicial economy. By issuing a direction for a joint trial at the stage of consideration of bail, the High Court pre-empted and curtailed the statutory discretion vested in the trial Court. Further, the grant of such a substantive procedural direction at the bail stage travels beyond the limited scope of bail jurisdiction. The High Court could not have directed a joint trial of two distinct cases without following due process of law or recording cogent reasons in consonance with Sections 218 to 223 Cr.P.C and the corresponding provisions of the BNSS.”

The Court referred to its judgment in Mamman Khan v. State of Haryana (2025) and observed, “In the present case, it is revealed that Crime No. 39 of 2020 and Crime No. 202 of 2022 arise from separate FIRs, pertain to distinct occurrences, were registered in different years, and involve different factual allegations, witnesses, and evidentiary foundations. The offences cannot be characterised as being of the “same kind” nor can they be said to form part of the same transaction…The High Court, while issuing the impugned direction, did not examine the dates of the alleged offences, the time gap between the incidents, the nature and scope of the offences, the roles attributed to the accused or the stage of proceedings in the respective cases. No finding was recorded as to how the statutory requirements for a joint trial were satisfied.”

As regards the legality of granting bail to the Accused persons, the Court said that the criminal antecedents of the respondents / accused were expressly placed before the High Court and were recorded in the impugned judgment, however, the High Court failed to draw any conclusion from them or assess their relevance to the likelihood of reoffending, intimidation of witnesses, or obstruction of justice.

“It is significant to point out that the High Court appears to have been influenced by the existence of a civil dispute between the parties. It is trite law that pendency of civil litigation neither dilutes criminal liability nor overrides considerations of gravity, antecedents, or witness safety. Reliance on the civil nature of the dispute, without addressing the serious criminal dimensions of the case, constitutes a misdirection in law. On the other hand, the impugned judgment contains formulaic observations, unaccompanied by any reasoned linkage between the facts of the case and the legal standards governing the grant of bail. There is no explanation as to how release on bail, in the backdrop of prior cancellation, death of a material witness, and allegations of witness intimidation, is compatible with a fair and uninfluenced trial,” the Court held.

Conclusion

The Court concluded that the direction issued by the High Court for joint trial was legally unsustainable, contrary to the statutory scheme and binding precedents.

Accordingly, the Criminal Appeals were allowed, and the impugned order passed by the High Court was set aside. The bail granted to the Respondents-Accused persons was cancelled, and the Respondents-Accused persons were directed to surrender before the trial court.

Cause Title: Lakshmanan v. State Through The Deputy Superintendent of Police & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1483]

Appearances:

Appellant: M/S. Ram Sankar & Co, AOR, including Advocate Dr Ram Sankar, Advocates Anuradha Arputham, K R Bharathi Kumar, Maheswaran Prabakaran, S Anand, Sushant Singh, and Aswin Sam.

Respondents: AORs Sabarish Subramanian and Narender Kumar Verma, alongside Advocates Arpitha Anna Mathew, Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Jahnavi Taneja, Veshal Tyagi, K.S. Badhrinathan, Danish Saifi, Aashigaa Pravaagini, C.R.Jaya Sukin, Divya Mishra, Yashika Anand, E. Krishnaperumal, Arun Vivek Sezhian, and Roshan Chapagain.

Click here to read/download the Judgment