Victims have the right to be heard in bail proceedings, but they are not necessarily required to be added as parties without statutory mandate.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR UPMAN, J.

The petitioners have filed this application under Section 438 Cr. P.C. having apprehension of their arrest in connection with FIR No. 228/2023 registered at Police Station Masuda District Ajmer for offences under Sections 323 , 341, 354 and 504 IPC. Presently, investigation is going on for offences under Sections 143 , 323, 341, 325, 451 and 308 IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners who are females, have falsely been implicated in this case. They have nothing to do with the alleged incident. He further submits that the petitioner Pooja has a pregnancy of three months whereas the accused petitioner Narayani has a three months old child. He also contends that cross cases have been registered between the parties. The petitioners are ready to join investigation.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to procure the latest factual report of the investigation on the next date of hearing. He shall also intimate the injured/victim about this bail application.

4. Till further orders, the petitioners (1) Pooja Gurjar D/o Nandaram Gurjar (2) Smt. Rekha Gurjar W/o Shri Ramkunwar Gurjar and (3) Smt. Narayani Gurjar W/o Shri Yaskaran Gurjar shall not be arrested in connection with FIR No. 228/2023 PS Masuda, District Ajmer.

5. At this stage, learned Public Prosecutor has drawn attention of this Court to Standing Order No. 32/S.0./2023 dated 15.09.2023 issued by the Office of this Court whereby it was enjoined upon all the concerned that in future, in all matters arising out of criminal act committed against victim as defined under Section 2(wa) of Cr. P.C. the victim be necessarily impleaded as party respondent.

6. I have gone through the standing order.

7. The aforesaid Standing Order has been passed on the basis of observations made in the order dated 08.08.2023 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9490/2023 : Nitoo Singh @ Nitu Singh v. State of Rajasthan, that victim is necessary party in all the bail matters arising out of criminal act committed against the victim. While making aforesaid observation, learned Co-ordinate Bench, has relied upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment in Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu , (2022) 9 SCC 321 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Jagjeet Singh, (supra) has given emphasis on the victim's right to be heard at every step post the occurrence of an offence and therefore, while relying on the said judgment, learned Coordinate Bench has observed as under:—

4. Evidently, the right of the victim is substantive as well as enforceable and cannot be termed as restrictive. Therefore, in my view, the victim is a necessary party to be added in all the bail matters arising out of criminal act committed against the victim as defined under Section 2(wa) of Cr. P.C. The Court has experienced sometimes, that even the Public Prosecutor does not inform the victim and the victim remains unheard. Once the right of the victim is recognized to participate even at the stage of grant or cancellation of bail, by necessary implication, the victim would be a necessary party even in the bail matters.

8. I have carefully gone through the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jagjeet Singh, (supra). The facts of the case reveal that victims therein have been denied a fair and effective hearing at the time of granting bail to the respondent accused. The victims therein joined the proceedings through online but disconnected from the online proceedings and could not make effective submissions. Ther