ORDER :

This is an application submitted by the defacto complainant, who is impleaded as additional 3rd respondent in this bail application. The aforesaid bail application was disposed of by this Court as per order dated 29.04.2022. The bail application was submitted by the petitioners, who are the accused in crime No.1308/2021 of Ranni Police Station, which was registered for the offences punishable under Section 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. In this case, even though initially, the bail application was filed without impleading the defacto complainant, subsequently, an application was filed to that effect and the same was allowed and accordingly, he was impleaded as the 3rd respondent. On 19.04.2022, when the matter came up for consideration, this Court passed an order directing the Station House Officer, Ranni Police Station to serve notice on the additional 3rd respondent and the matter was directed to be posted after service of notice. Even though, no subsequent posting date is seen recorded in the proceeding sheet of this case, but in the history of the case hearing as uploaded in the official website of this Court, the next posting date is shown as 20.05.2022. It is evident from the endorsement made the proceeding sheet of the bail application that, the order dated 19.04.2022 was communicated to the Public Prosecutor on 21.04.2022. It is seen that, the case was again came up on 26.04.2022, and from that date the matter was posted to 29.04.2022. On 29.04.2022, the bail application was disposed of. The specific case of the 3rd respondent is that, the application was disposed of without notice to them and therefore the same is a nullity.

3. The application to recall the said order was submitted in such circumstances. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the decision rendered by this Court in Pushpangathan v. State of Kerala [2015 (3) KLT 105] and Babu @ Achayan v. Thankachan [2022 (2) KLT 394] to support the contention that, this Court is well within its powers to recall the order passed by invoking the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when it is found that, the order was passed without giving an opportunity of being heard to a party affected and thus an order passed in violation of principles of natural justice.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner in the bail application would oppose the said contentions and prayers.

5. After considering all the relevant aspects, I am of the view that, there is some force in the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel, even though a notice was directed to be served to the 3rd respondent through the Station House Officer, apparently the same is not served upon him. It is evident that, the said order was pronounced on 19.04.2022 and the same was communicated to the Public Prosecutor on 21.04.2022 and immediately on 26.04.2022 the matter was again taken up despite the fact that next posting date was shown as 20.05.2022. Later, the matter is seen disposed of on 29.04.2022. Therefore, it is evident that the disposal of the bail application was without notice to the 3rd respondent.

6. It is to be noted that in this regard that, as per Section 15A(3) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, a victim or his dependent shall have the right to reasonable, accurate and timely notice of any court proceedings including any bail proceedings and the said Public Prosecutor or the State Government shall inform the victim about the proceedings under the Act. In this case, as one of the offences were under the provisions of the Schedules Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, a notice was mandatory as contemplated under the above provision. Therefore, issuance of an order without complying