JUDGMENT :

Aggrieved by part of the order dated 20th January 2020, passed by learned Judicial Commissioner at Ranchi in A.B.P. No. 1987 of 2019, arising out of Lower Bazaar Police Station Case No. 411 of 2018, the petitioners have approached this Court, by filing this criminal miscellaneous petition, by invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’).

2. The petitioners herein are accused of Lower Bazar Police Station Case No.411 of 2018 registered under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. These accused persons approached the Court of learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi praying for grant of anticipatory bail. Learned Judicial Commissioner, in A.B.P. No. 1987 of 2019, heard the petitioners and granted the privilege of anticipatory bail to them. While granting anticipatory bail, learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, directed the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh collectively, in favour of the informant/victim, as ad-interim victim compensation. The petitioners are aggrieved by this part of the order which directs them to pay the victim compensation.

3. The informant/victim was noticed in this criminal miscellaneous petition. The victim/informant has appeared through their lawyer. All the parties agreed for final disposal of this case at this stage itself, thus they argued at length to their satisfaction.

SUBMISSION OF THE PETITIONERS

4. The counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that learned Judicial Commissioner has committed a grave error in granting victim compensation at the stage of grant of bail by directing the petitioners to pay the said amount. He submits that at the stage of bail, these petitioners are merely an accused. As there is a presumption of innocence in their favour, the petitioners could not have been directed to compensate the informant/victim. It is his submission that without giving a concrete finding that the petitioners are guilty of the offence, no order could have been passed against them to compensate the informant/victim. As per the petitioners this finding of guilt can only be arrived at, after completion of the trial and not before that. Thus, he contends that without holding the petitioners guilty (after conclusion of a proper trial), the Court could not have ordered, nor could have directed the petitioners to compensate the victim/informant. He submits that as per section 357A of the Code the Court does not have any power to direct payment of victim compensation. As per his submission, the Court is only a recommending authority, and could not have fixed the quantum of compensation. According to the petitioners, learned Judicial Commissioner has gone beyond the scope of section 357A of the Code by fixing the quantum of compensation and also directing the petitioners to pay the said amount. He further submits that the State of Jharkhand has formulated a scheme for grant of victim compensation and as per the said scheme, there is a schedule and only the victims, who suffer the nature of injuries prescribed as per the schedule, is entitled to receive victim compensation. According to him this case does not fall within the categorised injuries or loss as mentioned in the schedules, thus, the impugned order directing payment of compensation is bad. He further submits that the Court could not have directed to make the payment of victim compensation as a condition of bail also. He submits that it is well settled principle that the Court, while granting bail, cannot impose any irrelevant condition. He submits that directing the petitioner to pay the amount as compensation, at the time of grant of bail, is an irrelevant condition, that too without considering the effect of future acquittal. He further submits that though in the impugned order it has been mentioned that the petitioners have volunteered to co