Point of Law: Rule 14. Specific responsibility of the State Government - (1) The State Government shall make necessary provisions in its annual budget for providing relief and rehabilitation facilities to the victims of atrocity, as well as for implementing an appropriate scheme for the rights and entitlements of victims and witnesses in accessing justice as specified in sub-section (11) of Section 15-A of Chapter IV-A of the Act.

JUDGMENT :

AJAY BHANOT, J.

1. The narrative is being structured in the following framework to facilitate the discussion:

(I) Defining the controversy and its origins:

2. The amendments to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [hereinafter referred to as the “Act”] made in the year 2016, brought in their wake an alteration in the practice and procedure for hearing of bail applications.

3. Learned counsels for the applicants in all connected bail applications pointed out certain anomalies in the practices of hearing of bail applications/bail appeals under the Act. This has created inconsistencies in the procedure for hearing of bail applications/bail appeals, uncertainty in the period of maturation of bail applications/bail appeals, and deferment of hearing of bail applications/bail appeals under the Act for undefined periods.

4. This issue is common to all bail applications before this Court. The individual bail applications will be decided on the respective facts of each case by separate orders.

5. Considering the importance of the issue raised by the learned counsel for the applicants in all the bail applications, the Court had requested the learned members of the Bar to assist the Court in defining and resolving the controversy.

6. Shri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General was also requested to take appropriate instructions from the State Government and make submissions before the Court.

7. Simply put the questions of law which arise for determination are these:

(i) What is the agency and mode for service of notice of bail applications/bail appeal upon the victim under the Act (as amended from time to time)?

(ii) What is the time period for maturation of a bail application/bail appeal before the High Court which implements the mandate of the Act (as amended from time to time) and agrees with the requirements of constitutional liberties?

(II) Submissions of the learned counsels for the Parties:

8. Apart from the counsels for the applicants, Shri Nazrul Islam Jafri, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Mohd. Zubair Khan, Shri Vinay Saran, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel, Shri R.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel, Shri Santosh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel and Shri Raghuvansh Mishra, learned counsel kindly volunteered to assist the Court. On behalf of the State Shri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri Gambhir Singh, learned counsel and Shri Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for the State have made their submissions.

9. Learned counsel for the applicants in various bail applications, Shri Ajeet Srivastava, Shri Rajesh Chandra Gupta, and Shri Devendra Saini submit that the usual procedure adopted by the Court to effect the service of the notice of bail applications upon the victim under the Act, is to issue notice to the victim by regular mode or through the Chief Judicial Magistrate of the district concerned. The procedure is not contemplated in the Act, and delays hearing of bail applications/bail appeals for varying periods.

10. Shri Nazrul Islam Jafri, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Mohd. Zubair Khan, learned counsel made the following contentions:

(i) The disarray caused in the procedure for hearing of bails is primarily because of service of notice upon the victim by the process of Court, instead of direct service by the State as contemplated in the Act. Hearing of bail application is delayed for uncertain periods resulting in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The procedure and p