The supreme court bench of Justices Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and BV Nagarathna observed that issuing notice under Sec 15A was mandatory.

Facts of the case were: The appellant lodged an FIR  for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Penal Code. In his complaint, the appellant stated that his younger brother Ram Niwas had gone out carrying out labour work. The appellant was informed by his mothe that Ram Niwas was away to meet his brother-in–law, Kishan Lal, and that he would not return for the day. The next day, Ram Niwas’s spouse informed the appellant that her brother Kishan Lal had taken Ram Niwas in a vehicle at about 3.00 o’clock. Later, The local residents informed the appellant that the dead body of Ram Niwas was thrown out of a vehicle. Since the deceased belonged to a Scheduled Caste, offences punishable under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were added. The application for bail for Kishan Lal was rejected by the Sessions Court and aggrieved by the decision he preferred an appeal to the High court of Rajasthan. He also made an application for bail before the Special Judge, SC/ST (Atrocities Prevention Cases) Ajmerwhich was also rejected. The respondent again instituted an appeal before the High court against the rejection of the second bail application and this appeal was allowed. The appellant moved the High Court under Section 439(2) of CrPC for cancellation of bail. The application for cancellation of bail before the High Court was moved principally on the ground that no notice was issued to the appellant under sub-section (3) of Section 15A of the SC/ST Act. 

Join Now! India's Largest directory of lawyers and legal professionals

The counsels for the appellants submitted that The application for cancellation of bail before the High Court was moved principally on the ground that no notice was issued to the appellant under sub-section (3) of Section 15A of the SC/ST Act and further submitted that there is a CCTV footage and call data records which shows that all the accused were in close contact with each other and prima facie reveals the complicity of the first respondent in the murder of the deceased. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent submitted that he order granting bail has relied upon the statement of the spouse of the deceased that Ram Niwas was murdered by his brother-in-law Kishan Lal with the help of his friends for obtaining the proceeds of the insurance policy and hence the main and substantive allegation is against Kishan Lal.

Sec 15a(3) confers a right to a prior notice, this being evident from the use of the expression “reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any court proceeding including any bail proceeding” and sub-section (5) provides for a right to be heard to the victim or to a dependent. Referring to Hemal Ashwin Jain v. Union of India, the Gujarat High court held that the requirement of issuing notice of a court proceeding to a victim or a dependent under Section 15A (3), in order to provide them an opportunity of being heard, is mandatory and the same can be echoed in multiple High court decisions. 

The court observed that, in the instant case, this right to notice and to be heard were violated. The supreme court was of the opinion “When the appellant moved the High Court for cancellation of bail, the Single Judge took the view that compliance with the principles of natural justice at that particular stage would cure the deficiency. There has been a clear infraction of the mandate of the statute. Subsections (3) and (5) have been introduced by the Parliament to ensure a right to be heard to the person against whom the offence is committed or to the dependents. These provisions must be scrupulously observed”. While granting bail to the first respondent, the High Court in its order only recorded the submission of counsel for the first respondent and there is absolutely no reasoning in the order of the High Court granting bail, after recording the submissions of the first respondent’s counsel apart from noting that the public prosecutor had opposed the bail. The supreme court was of the view “The duty to record reasons cannot be obviated by recording submissions, followed by an omnibus “in the facts and circumstances” formula. Brief reasons which indicate the basis for granting bail are essential, for it is the reasons adduced by the court which indicate the basis of the order”. Hence, the appeal was accordingly allowed. 

For reading the complete judgment, please click below:-

Hariram Bhambhi Vs Satyanarayan & Anr. [Criminal Appeal No. 1278 of 2021]