1. Appeal against High Court order granting bail to an accused under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 1046
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BELA M. TRIVEDI, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Victim A – Appellant
Versus
Anurag Mehto & Anr. – Respondent+
Criminal Appeal No. 4554 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No. 13749 of 2023)
Decided On : 11-11-2024
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. R.C.mishra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajnish Kumar Jha, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Purvish J. Malkan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Malhotra, AOR Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR Mr. Aditya Vaibhav Singh GA, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. R.C.mishra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajnish Kumar Jha, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Purvish J. Malkan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Malhotra, AOR Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR Mr. Aditya Vaibhav Singh GA, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
The High Court's failure to hear the complainant before granting bail violated her rights under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, necessitating remand for fresh consideration.
Headnote:
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 15A(3) and (5) - Bail granted by High Court without affording opportunity to the complainant - High Court's order set aside due to non-compliance with statutory provisions - Matter remanded for fresh consideration after hearing the victim-complainant. (Paras 4, 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The appeal challenges the High Court's order granting bail to Anurag Mehto without hearing the complainant, violating her rights under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Findings of Court:
The High Court's order was set aside due to the lack of compliance with the statutory provisions regarding the complainant's right to be heard.
Issues: Whether the High Court's failure to hear the complainant before granting bail constituted a violation of her rights under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, ensuring that the complainant is afforded an opportunity to be heard before any bail decision is made.
Result: Appeal allowed, and the matter remanded for fresh consideration.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Complainant argued that the High Court failed to provide a hearing as mandated by Section 15A(3) and (5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. (Para 4 )
3. The court found that the High Court failed to comply with the statutory requirement of hearing the victim-complainant before granting bail. (Para 5 )
4. Compliance with the mandatory hearing provisions for the victim-complainant under Section 15A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is necessary for granting bail. (Para 5 )
5. Appeal allowed; bail order set aside and matter remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration after hearing the victim-complainant. (Para 6 , 9 )
6. Is the hearing of the victim-complainant mandatory before granting bail under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act?
Yes, the court held that the High Court must comply with the provisions of Section 15A(3) and (5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, by hearing the victim-complainant. (Para 5 )
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned senior counsel/ learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 07.07.2023, passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Principal Seat at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No.8035/2023, whereby the High Court has granted bail to respondent no.1-Anurag Mehto subject to the certain/ usual conditions.
4. It is sought to be submitted by the learned senior counsel for the appellant/ complainant that the High Court had not afforded any opportunity to be heard to the appellant-complainant though, she was entitled for the same in view of the provisions contained in Sub Section(3) and (5) of Section-15A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
5. With regard to the said provisions, and also with regard to the admitted fact that there is no compliance of the said provisions by the High Court while passing the impugned order, we deem it appropriate to set aside the said order and remand the matter to the High Court for deciding it afresh after hearing the victim-complainant.
6. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 07.07.2023 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the High Court for its consideration afresh on merits.
7. However, it is directed that the respondent no.1-Anurag Mehto/ accused shall not be arrested for a period two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. If the matter is not heard by the High Court within two weeks, the High Court shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders with regard to the surrender of the respondent no.1-Anurag Mehto/ accused.
9. Subject to the aforesaid, the appeal is allowed.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
