New Delhi: The Supreme Court has delivered a landmark judgment denying bail to accused persons in a case involving serious offenses, emphasizing the crucial role of victim participation in legal proceedings. Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma made significant observations regarding procedural requirements in criminal cases.
Victim’s Participation in Bail Proceedings Made Mandatory
The court addressed a case involving serious offenses in the Bareilly district. It noted, “The concerned respondents – accused had not impleaded the present appellant as a party – respondent in the bail proceedings filed before the High Court, and the Public Prosecutor also had not informed the appellant – victim about the said proceedings.”
Highlighting legal violations, the court observed, “There is a gross violation of the statutory provisions contained in Section 439(1A) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST Act. The High Court granted bail to the concerned respondents in a very casual and cursory manner and without assigning any cogent reasons, though the concerned respondents are prima facie involved in very serious offences.”
Supreme Court Criticizes Procedural Violations in Bail Grant
The court underscored the mandatory nature of victim participation, stating, “As per Section 439(1A) of the Cr.P.C., the presence of the informant or any person authorised by him or her is obligatory at the time of hearing of the application for bail.”
Drawing attention to the impact of such procedural lapses, the court concluded, “These procedural violations cannot be permitted to flourish in society by adopting a soft-pedalling approach at the cost of widespread damage to the legal process.”
In its decisive ruling, the court ordered the accused - Khargesh @ Golu, son of Mukesh Kumar, and Karan, son of Paramhans Singh - to surrender before the Trial Court on or before December 30, 2024.
Appearance: For the petitioner(s), Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, AOR; Mr. Jatin Bhardwaj, Adv.; Mr. D. Abhinav Rao, AOR; and Mr. Pratik Samajpati, Adv. appeared. Representing the respondent(s) were Dr. Vijendra Singh, AOR; Mr. Vikas Bansal, Adv.; Mr. Rakesh Mishra, AOR; Mr. Rajiv Dewan, Adv.; and Mr. Divakar Kumar, AOR.
Case Title: X vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Geeta Aug 12, 2025
Thanks for giving me such an important information 🙏