2025 Supreme(SC) 2099

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. Nagarathna, R. Mahadevan, JJ.
Lakshmanan – Appellant
Versus
State Through The Deputy Superintendent Of Police & Ors. Etc. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 5628 of 2025 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 6647 - 6650 of 2025]
Decided On : 19-12-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Grant of bail – Cancellation of bail on the ground of violation of Section 15A(5) of SC/ST Act, 1989 is justified only in cases where no notice of bail proceedings was served upon victim, victim was completely excluded from proceedings, or victim was denied any opportunity of audience.
(2) Joinder of charges – Separate trial is norm and joint trial is permissible only where offences form part of same transaction.
(3) Joint trial – Determination of whether a joint or separate trial should be conducted lies primarily within domain of trial Court to be exercised at threshold of trial – Grant of such a substantive procedural direction by High Court at bail stage travels beyond limited scope of bail jurisdiction.

Headnote:

(A) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989–Section 15A(5) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439(2) – Grant of bail – Appeal against – Case registered for offences under sections 147, 148, 447, 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 307 and 379 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act – Bail can be cancelled on the ground of violation of Section 15A(5) of SC/ST (POA) Act – However, such cancellation is warranted only where there is complete denial of victim’s statutory right to be heard – Section 15A(5) confers mandatory procedural right upon victim or their dependent to participate in bail proceedings – Section 15A(5) incorporates principle of audi alteram partem for victims under SC/ST (POA) Act – Where such a right is conferred, Court must provide victim or their dependent opportunity of audience, either personally or through Counsel, including Special Public Prosecutor – Cancellation of bail on the ground of violation of Section 15A(5) is justified only in cases where no notice of bail proceedings was served upon victim, victim was completely excluded from proceedings, or victim was denied any opportunity of audience – In such circumstances, violation strikes at root of jurisdiction and renders bail order legally unsustainable – However, bail cannot be cancelled merely because court did not accept victim’s submissions, bail order does not specifically deal with or rebut each objection raised, or victim alleges that hearing was “mechanical” despite having been granted opportunity – Courts, particularly at stage of bail, are required only to form a prima facie view and bail orders are not expected to contain elaborate or exhaustive reasoning – Section 15A(5) does not mandate detailed analysis or express rejection of every submission advanced by victim. (Paras 11.2, 11.3, 11.4, 11. 5 and 11.6)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439(2) – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989–Section 15A(5) – Grant of bail – Appeal against – There is no allegation that notice was not served, that appellant was excluded from proceedings, or that opportunity of hearing was denied – Since victim was heard and permitted to participate in bail proceedings, core statutory requirement under Section 15A(5) stood complied with – In absence of any procedural illegality, perversity or complete denial of right of audience, bail order cannot be cancelled on this ground alone – However, power to set aside or annul a bail order operates in a field distinct from cancellation of bail – Cancellation of bail is ordinarily premised on supervening circumstances or post-bail misconduct, whereas annulment is justified where very order granting bail is vitiated by perversity, illegality, arbitrariness or non-application of mind – Recording antecedents without evaluating their impact amounts to empty formality and does not satisfy judicial obligation to apply mind to relevant considerations – Pendency of civil litigation neither dilutes criminal liability nor overrides considerations of gravity, antecedents, or witness safety – Reliance on civil nature of dispute, without addressing serious criminal dimensions of case, constitutes a misdirection in law – High Court granted bail to respondents / accused ignoring prior cancellation of bail and abuse of liberty, failing to consider death of a material witness and threat to fairness of trial, disregarding gravity and seriousness of offences, including those under SC/ST (POA) Act, overlooking criminal antecedents placed on record, and relying on irrelevant considerations – Judgment of High Court granting bail to respondents / accused deserves to be set aside. (Paras 11.7, 11.9, 12, 12.3, 12.4 and 12.5)

(C) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 242 [Section 219 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973] – Joinder of charges – Separate trial is norm and joint trial is permissible only where offences form part of same transaction or where statutory conditions under Sections 219 to 223 Cr.P.C (and corresponding BNSS provisions) are satisfied – Even where statutory conditions permitting a joint trial are fulfilled, conduct of a joint trial is a matter of judicial discretion and not compulsion – Decision must ordinarily be taken at beginning of trial, and must be guided by two paramount considerations, whether joint trial would cause prejudice to accused and whether it would result in delay or wastage of judicial time – Evidence recorded in one trial cannot be automatically imported into another and that procedural complications may arise if distinct trials are improperly clubbed – High Court while issuing impugned direction, did not examine dates of alleged offences, time gap between incidents, nature and scope of offences, roles attributed to accused or stage of proceedings in respective cases – Offences cannot be characterised as being of “same kind” nor can they be said to form part of same transaction. (Paras 13.3, 13.4 and 13.5)

(D) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 219 – [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 242] – Joint trial – Determination of whether a joint or separate trial should be conducted lies primarily within domain of trial Court to be exercised at threshold of trial upon a reasoned assessment of prejudice, convenience, and judicial economy – By issuing direction for joint trial at stage of consideration of bail, High Court pre-empted and curtailed statutory discretion vested in trial Court – Grant of such a substantive procedural direction at bail stage travels beyond limited scope of bail jurisdiction – 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 corresponding provisions of BNSS – Direction issued by High Court for joint trial is legally unsustainable, contrary to statutory scheme and binding precedents, and impugned judgment warrants interference by this Court on this aspect as well – Impugned judgment of High Court set aside and bail granted to respondents / accused cancelled. (Paras 13.6, 13.7 and 14)

Facts of the case:

The instant Criminal Appeals have been preferred by appellant / de facto complainant, aggrieved by judgment dated 09.04.2025 passed by Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 359, 346, 360 and 326 of 2025. Vide impugned judgment, High Court allowed criminal appeals, thereby enlarging respondents / accused persons on bail subject to certain conditions, and directed Principal District Judge, to conduct joint trial of cases.

Findings of Court:

Direction issued by High Court for joint trial of Crime No. 39 of 2020 and Crime No. 202 of 2022 is legally unsustainable, contrary to statutory scheme and binding precedents, and impugned judgment warrants interference by this Court on this aspect as well.

Result : Criminal Appeals allowed.