JUDGMENT :

Birendra Kumar, J.

The victim is not a party to this bail application filed under Section 439 Cr. P.C. in FIR No. 27/2023 registered with Police Station Udhyog Nagar Sikar, District Sikar for offences under Sections 384, 354, 504 and 506 of IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after taking note of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu , (2022) 9 SCC 321 , the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Saleem v. State of N.C.T Delhi , 2023 Live Law (Del.) 325 has held that though the victim has right to be heard in bail matters but the victim is not a necessary party, therefore, as a normal practice, only State Counsel should be asked to intimate the victim about filing of the bail application.

3. As regards to the right of the victim to be heard at every stages of criminal matters including the bail matters, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagjeet Singh, (supra) held as follows:—

“20. It was further recommended that the victim be armed with a right to be represented by an advocate of his/her choice, and if he/she is not in a position to afford the same, to provide an advocate at the State's expense. The victim's right to participate in criminal trial and his/her right to know the status of investigation, and take necessary steps, or to be heard at every crucial stage of the criminal proceedings, including at the time of grant or cancellation of bail, were also duly recognised by the- Committee. Repeated judicial intervention, coupled with the recommendations made from time to time as briefly noticed above, prompted the Parliament to bring into force the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008, which not only inserted the definition of a ‘victim’ under Section 2(wa) but also statutorily recognised various rights of such victims at different stages of trial.

23. It cannot be gainsaid that the right of a victim under the amended Cr. P.C. are substantive, enforceable, and are another facet of human rights. The victim's right, therefore, cannot be termed or construed restrictively like a brutum fulrnen. We reiterate that these rights are totally independent, incomparable, and are not accessory or auxiliary to those of the State under the Cr. P.C. The presence of ‘State’ in the proceedings, therefore, does not tantamount to according a hearing to a ‘victim’ of the crime.

24. A ‘victim’ within the meaning of Cr. P.C. cannot be asked to await the commencement of trial for asserting his/her right to participate in the proceedings. He/She has a legally vested right to be heard at every step post the occurrence of an offence. Such a ‘victim’ has unbridled participatory rights from the stage of investigation till the culmination of the proceedings in an appeal or revision. We may hasten to clarify that ‘victim’ and ‘complainant/informant’ are two distinct connotations in criminal jurisprudence. It is not always necessary that the complainant/informant is also a ‘victim’, for even a stranger to the act of crime can be an ‘informant’, and similarly, a ‘victim’ need not be the complainant or informant of a felony.

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 b