IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that under the S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, it is mandatory to provide notice to the informant/victim before hearing a bail application, ensuring their right to be heard in the proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

(Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard the appellant in person, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and perused the material available on record.

2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant -Subash Chandra Srivastava (In person) with the prayer to cancel/quash the bail granted to the respondent no.2 vide order dated 1.1.2020 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Padrauna, Kushinagar in Special Trial No.492 of 2019 (State Vs. Raju @ Sunil Kumar Srivastava) arising out of case crime no.436 of 2019 under sections 323, 504, 352, 427 IPC and 3 (1) (r) S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Police Station Kotwali Padrauna, District Kushinagar.

3. The factual aspect of the matter, as revealed from the perusal of the F.I.R. of this case, is that 3 named accused persons along with 3 -4 other unknown associates were present on the place of occurrence and co-accused Sunil @ Raju was making a puncture in the vehicle of the informant. When it was protested by the informant and his friend Ram Narain Mushar, they were threatened and abused by all the aforesaid accused persons and Ram Narain Mushar was also abused by his caste name on a public place in the public view. The incident occurred due to a land dispute between the parties whereupon the accused persons had already made an assault upon the house of the informant on 25.5.2019. The incident happened on 30.8.2019 at about 11:00 A.M. and the F.I.R. was lodged on the same day at 22:15 hours. Subsequently, after submission of the charge-sheet, cognizance was taken on 7.12.2019 and at this stage a bail application was moved by respondent no.2 Raju @ Sunil Kumar Srivastava and he was granted interim bail by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Kushinagar till 1.1.2020 and an order was also passed to issue notice to the informant of this case. Thereafter, on 1.1.2020, the impugned bail order was passed whereby the accused/respondent no.2 was granted regular bail by the trial court.

4. Albeit several instances have been mentioned in the present appeal relating to misuse of bail on the part of respondent no.2, which was granted to him by the impugned order dated 1.1.2020 but at the time of argument the learned counsel for the appellant concised his argument on the sole issue that Section 15A (3), (5) of the S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act mandates that prior to the hearing of the bail application under the provisions of S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, notice must be sent to the informant of the case. In the present matter, no notice was served upon the informant and without notice, the bail application of the accused respondent no.2 was heard and allowed and the informant was provided no opportunity of hearing on bail application before the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Kushinagar at Padrauna. Since the mandatory provisions of the S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act have not been complied with by the learned Special Court, the bail granted to the accused respondent no.2 vide order dated 1.1.2020 is liable to be cancelled.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 opposed the present appeal and it has been vehemently argued that due notice was given to the informant of this case prior to the disposal of the bail application no.2119 of 2019 by the Special Court under S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Kushinagar at Padrauna. It is further argued that the factum of notice to the informant finds place in paragraph 5 of the impugned order dated 1.1.2020 itself which says that a notice has been issued to the informant, but neither the informant nor any counsel on his behalf was present before the Court which led the Court to hear the prosecution and the accused on bail application and bail was granted by the learned Special Court to the present respondent no.2 after hearing. It is further submitted that present is not a case of misuse of bail granted to the acc