Supreme Court cancels 'casual' grant of bail to rape accused

The Supreme Court recently cancelled bail granted by the Allahabad High Court to two persons accused of raping a minor girl, after noting that the victim/ informant was not given an opportunity to oppose the bail pleas, in gross violation legal provisions [X versus The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another]..A Bench comprising Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma observed that the High Court had granted bail in a casual and cursory manner, disregarding the requirements of Section 439(1A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and Section 15A(3) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SC/ST Act).According to Section 439(1A), CrPC the presence of the informant or their representative is required during bail hearings of persons accused of committing offences under Section 376 (3) (rape on a woman less than sixteen years of age) and related provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).Similarly, Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST Act obligates the Special Public Prosecutor to inform the informant about all court proceedings, including bail hearings."In the instant case, there is gross violation of the said statutory provisions contained in Section 439(1A) of Cr.P.C. and Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST Act, at the 2 instance of the respondents. The High Court also in the impugned order has not considered the said mandatory requirement of both the Acts and granted bail to the concerned respondents in a very casual and cursory manner and without assigning any cogent reasons, though the concerned respondents are prima facie involved in a very serious offences," the Court said. .Is it necessary to hear victim before grant of anticipatory bail to accused? Supreme Court to examine.The Court was dealing with two criminal appeals filed by the victim, contesting the grant of bail to two accused of raping her in 2021.The charges included Sections 323 (hurt), 363 (kidnapping), 376DA (gang rape on woman under sixteen years of age), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 392 (robbery) of the IPC, charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and the SC/ST Act.The appellant-victim argued that the High Court granted bail without impleading her or ensuring her presence, thereby violating Section 439(1A) of the CrPC and Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST Act..The top court found merit in these arguments, observing that the High Court had granted bail in a "casual and cursory manner," disregarding the mandatory procedural safeguards meant to protect the victim's rights.It, therefore, allowed the appeals and set aside the bail orders passed by the Allahabad High Court. Both accused persons were ordered to surrender before the concerned trial court by December 30. .Advocates Pranav Sachdeva, Jatin Bhardwaj, D Abhinav Rao and Pratik Samajpati appeared for the appellant.Advocates Dr. Vijendra Singh, Vikas Bansal, Rakesh Mishra, Rajiv Dewan and Divakar Kumar represented the respondents. .[Read judgement]