Monday, December 22, 2025

SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — S. 15A(5) — Right of victim to be heard — Scope Section 15A(5) confers a mandatory procedural right upon the victim or dependent to be heard in bail proceedings. The provision guarantees an opportunity of audience, not a right to a favourable order or to a detailed adjudication of every objection raised. (Paras 11, 11.4–11.6)

SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — S. 15A(5) — Right of victim to be heard — Scope

Section 15A(5) confers a mandatory procedural right upon the victim or dependent to be heard in bail proceedings. The provision guarantees an opportunity of audience, not a right to a favourable order or to a detailed adjudication of every objection raised.
(Paras 11, 11.4–11.6)

SC/ST (POA) Act — S. 15A(5) — Bail — When violation occurs

Violation of Section 15A(5) warranting interference arises only where the victim is not notified, is excluded from proceedings, or is denied any opportunity of being heard. Bail cannot be annulled merely because the court did not expressly deal with each objection raised by the victim.
(Paras 11.5–11.10)

Bail — Annulment vs Cancellation — Distinction

Annulment of a bail order operates in a field distinct from cancellation of bail. Annulment is justified where the order granting bail is vitiated by perversity, arbitrariness, illegality or non-application of mind, irrespective of post-bail conduct.
(Para 12)

Bail — Non-application of mind — Prior cancellation ignored

Where earlier bail had been cancelled on account of grave supervening circumstances, including intimidation of witnesses and murder of a material witness, grant of fresh bail without considering such factors renders the order manifestly perverse.
(Paras 12.1, 12.5)

Bail — Gravity of offence — SC/ST (POA) Act

In cases involving serious offences under Section 307 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, the court must meaningfully evaluate the gravity of allegations, societal impact, criminal antecedents and threat to witnesses. Failure to do so reflects non-application of mind.
(Paras 12.2–12.3)

Bail — Irrelevant considerations

Pendancy of civil disputes between parties does not dilute criminal liability nor override considerations of seriousness of offences, misuse of liberty or threat to fair trial. Reliance on such considerations amounts to misdirection in law.
(Para 12.4)

Joint Trial — Ss. 218–223 Cr.P.C. / S. 242 BNSS — Principles

Separate trial is the rule under Section 218 Cr.P.C. Joint trial is an exception and permissible only when statutory conditions are satisfied or offences form part of the same transaction, and even then, it is a matter of judicial discretion.
(Paras 13.1–13.3)

Joint Trial — Bail stage — Impermissibility

Direction for joint trial of distinct cases arising from separate FIRs, at the stage of consideration of bail, travels beyond the limited scope of bail jurisdiction and impermissibly curtails the statutory discretion of the trial court.
(Paras 13.6–13.7)

Held

High Court’s order granting bail and directing joint trial set aside. Bail annulled. Accused directed to surrender.
(Para 14)

B. ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW (with Paragraph Numbers)

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND (Paras 2–3, 9–10)

Crime No. 39 of 2020 arose from an armed assault involving caste-based abuse against the appellant, a member of a Scheduled Caste, and his companion Suresh (paras 3, 10).
While the accused were on bail in Crime No. 39 of 2020, Suresh, a prime injured eyewitness, was murdered, leading to registration of Crime No. 202 of 2022 (para 10).
Bail earlier granted in Crime No. 39 of 2020 was cancelled owing to these supervening circumstances (paras 3, 10).
Despite repeated rejection of bail by trial courts, the High Court granted bail again and directed joint trial of both cases (paras 2, 10).

II. ISSUES BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT (Paras 11–13)

Whether the grant of bail violated Section 15A(5) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.
Whether the bail order was liable to be annulled for perversity and non-application of mind.
Whether the High Court was justified in directing a joint trial at the bail stage.

III. SECTION 15A(5) — RIGHT OF VICTIM (Paras 11–11.10)

The Court reiterated that Section 15A(5) embodies audi alteram partem for victims (para 11.3).
The right is satisfied once the victim is notified, heard, and allowed to place objections on record (paras 11.4–11.7).
Absence of detailed discussion on each objection does not amount to violation (paras 11.8–11.10).
On facts, the victim was heard; hence, no violation of Section 15A(5) was made out (para 11.10).

IV. ANNULMENT OF BAIL — PERVERSITY (Paras 12–12.5)

The High Court ignored:
- prior cancellation of bail;
- murder of a material witness while on bail;
- threat to fairness of trial (para 12.1).
Gravity of offences under IPC and SC/ST (POA) Act was not analysed (para 12.2).
Criminal antecedents were noted but not evaluated (para 12.3).
Civil disputes were wrongly treated as mitigating factors (para 12.4).
These failures rendered the bail order perverse and arbitrary, justifying annulment (para 12.5).

V. JOINT TRIAL — LEGAL ERROR (Paras 13–13.7)

Sections 218–223 Cr.P.C. and Section 242 BNSS treat joint trial as an exception (paras 13.1–13.3).
Crime No. 39 of 2020 and Crime No. 202 of 2022 arose from separate FIRs, different years, and distinct factual foundations (para 13.4).
High Court directed joint trial without examining statutory conditions or prejudice (paras 13.5–13.6).
Such direction at the bail stage exceeded jurisdiction and was legally unsustainable (para 13.7).

VI. CONCLUSION / RATIO DECIDENDI (Paras 14–15)

No violation of Section 15A(5) was established.
Bail order was annulled for perversity and non-application of mind.
Direction for joint trial set aside.
Accused directed to surrender; trial to proceed independently in accordance with law.

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN