IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
G - Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi - Respondent
Crl.M.C. 1474 of 2020 & Crl.M.As. 6330 of 2020, 6705 of 2020
Decided On : 05-06-2020
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. mandatory presence of informant during bail hearings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. provisions under the pocso act concerning child victims. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court directives to ensure compliance of practice directions. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. issues regarding notice to complainants in bail applications. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. court's concern over non-compliance of legal requirements. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. importance of hearing complainants before bail decisions. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 7. reaffirmation of legal requirements and court procedure. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 8. responsibility of courts to ensure notice is served. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 9. issuance of orders to enhance compliance of legal mandates. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 10. court's conclusion for setting aside improper bail orders. (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
JUDGMENT
1. The present Petition highlights a perennial and grave problem of hearing not being afforded to victims/complainants/informants, in bail applications filed on behalf of those accused who are facing trial under the provisions of Sections 3 76 (3), 376- AB, 376 - DA or 376 DB of the IPC dealing with rape of women below 12, 16 years of age including gang rapes as also under the provisions of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences ("POCSO") Act, 2012.
2. As per the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018, Section 439 of the Cr. P.C. was amended with effect from 21st April, 2020 by which it was made mandatory for the informant or any other person authorised by the informant to be present at the time of hearing of an application for bail filed by the accused under these provisions. The said amendment reads as under:
"23. In Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure-
(a) In sub-section (1), after the first proviso, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:
"Provided further that the High Court or the Court of Session shall, before granting bail to a person who is accused of an offence triable under sub-Section (3) of Section 3 76 or Section 3 76 -AB or Section 3 76 -DA or Section 3 76 -DB of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (45 of 1860), give notice of the application for bail to the Public Prosecutor within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice of such application."
(b) After sub-section(1), the following sub-section shall be inserted, namely:
"(1-A) The presence of the informant or any person authorized by him shall be obligatory at the time of hearing of the application for bail to the person under sub-section (3) of section 376 or section 376-AB or section 376-DA or section 376-DB of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (45 of 1860)."
3. The Delhi High Court issued `Practice Directions' on 24th September, 2019 to ensure compliance of the above amendment and directed as under:
"In order to ensure better and effective compliance of the above provisions, Hon'ble the Chief Justice has been pleased to direct as under:
(a) Before granting bail to a person who is accused of an offence triable under sub- Section (3) of Section 3 76 or Section 3 76 -AB or Section 3 76 -DA or Section 3 76 -DB of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , the High Court or the Court of Session shall give notice of the application for bail to the Public Prosecutor within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice of such application; and
(b) The Courts shall ensure that the Investigating Officer has, in writing as per Annexure A, communicated to the informant or any person authorized by her that her presence is obligatory at the time of hearing of the application for bail to the person under sub-section (3) of section 376 or section 376-AB or section 376-DA or section 376-DB of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . Annexure A shall be filed by the I.O. along with the Reply/Status Report to such bail application and the Courts shall make all endeavour to ensure presence of the informant or any person authorized by her."
As per the above Practice Directions, a format was prescribed for the communication to the informant by the Investigating Officer.
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.