IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT

th

ON THE 28 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 32296 of 2024 MAHAK SAHU Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Vineet Mishra - Advocate for the applicant.

Shri Sumit Raghuwanshi - Govt.Advocate for respondent/State.

Shri Ravi Shankar Patel - Advocate for respondent No.2.

ORDER The present petition under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been filed for following prayers:-

"It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to cancel bail order of the accused and direct to accuse surrender before the competent authority within stipulated time as this Hon'ble Court deems fit looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice."

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/original accused as well as learned counsel for the State were heard at length.

4. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although the petitioner, being the original victim, was impleaded as a party in the original proceedings, no notice was served upon him in MCRC No. 19436/2024, and the bail order was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the present applicant. It is further submitted that it is a settled position of law that where there is a violation of statutory provisions, bail is liable to be cancelled. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment in Jagjeet Singh and Another Vs. Ashish Mishra alias Monu and Others, (2022) 9 SCC 321. 5. Learned counsel further submitted that this is a fit case where bail was granted to the accused persons without hearing the complainant, and despite the applicant being a party to the proceedings, no notice was issued to him. Therefore, it is prayed that the order granting bail be recalled and appropriate orders be passed after affording an opportunity of hearing to the present applicant.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent/original accused has opposed the same and submitted that the present applicant is made party in the MCRC No.19436/2024 as Registry is normally insisting to implead the party. He has also submitted that the considering the provision of Section 439(1A) of Cr.P.C. (inserted by Criminal Law (Amendment Act, 2018 (22 of 2018), dated 11.08.2018 is providing the specific situation for the hearing is required to the complainant/victim. Section 439(1A) of Cr.P.C. is provided as under and material which is produced by the counsel for the respondent in support of the submission he is also reproduced as under :-

"(1A) The presence of the informant or any person authorised by him shall be obligatory at the time of hearing of the application for bail to the person under sub- section (3) of section 376 or section 376AB or section 376DA or section 376DB of the Indian Penal Code. [Inserted by Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018 (22 of

2018), dated 11.8.2018.

Section 376DA: Gang rape of a girl under 16. Section 376DB: Gang rape of a girl under 12.

Notice Requirement: The High Court or Court of Session must provide notice of the bail application to the Public Prosecutor within 15 days of receiving it.

Origin: This sub-section was inserted into the CrPC by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018, to ensure victims have a right to be heard in proceedings involving grave sexual violence.

Legal Significance & Enforcement Grounds for Cancellation: Courts have ruled that granting bail without complying with Section 439(1A) (i.e., failing to notify or hear the victim) is a violation of the Section 439(1A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973-now replaced by Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023-mandates the presence of the informant or an authorized representative during bail hearings for specific serious sexual offenses.

Key Provisions Mandatory Presence: The presence of the informant (victim) or their authorized representative is obligatory when a court hears a bail applic