Gujarat HC: Granting Bail Without Hearing the Victim Does Not Violate Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution

Must Read

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years...

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S....

Follow us

The Gujarat High Court has interpreted ‘bail’ in Section 15A (5) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 while deciding applicability to bailable offences. The Court has provided a rational nexus as the applicant’s contentions were prima facie delusional.

Brief Facts

The writ-applicant was a manager in a company in Ahmedabad. An employee of the factory filed a First Information Report for the offences punishable under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. The writ-applicant was arrested by the police and later released on bail by order of Special Court.

Furthermore, the applicant approached the Gujarat High Court challenging the constitutional validity of Section 15A (3) and (6). It was contended that hearing of the victim before granting bail was manifestly arbitrary under Article 14 of the Constitution. The new mandatory provision is an exception to general principles of granting bail. It was pleaded that no such exception must be allowed. Moreover, the nature of provision must be directory and not mandatory.

Therefore, the Court had to decide the validity of the provisions in the light of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

Court’s Observations

The Court noted the submission that the provision deprives the accused of his fundamental right to liberty and imposes arbitrary restriction. In addition, it was contended that the provision violates Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which is the parent statute for bail. It was observed that no legislation could be struck down unless it imposes unreasonable restrictions upon the Court. It shall always be the satisfaction of the Court to scrutinize the reasonable grounds for guilt or innocence irrespective of the appearance of the victim.

The bench also commented on the legislative intent of the said Act. The writ-applicant had contended that restricting bail without any exception condoned the misuse of the provisions. The applicant was correct in pointing out the intent, which was to prevent atrocities upon the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. However, permitting the victim to appear at all stages of the proceedings, including bail, does not render the same as arbitrary. The Court remarked that the applicant was misinformed as the exercise of Section 482 of CrPC prevented misuse on settled parameters, and there exists exact legal position.

Further, the Court had to decide on the nature of the impugned provision to be directory or mandatory. It asserted- “Physiology of the provisions is not by itself a determinative factor. The use of the words `shall’ or `may’, respectively would ordinarily indicate imperative or directory character, but not always.” Therefore, it was concluded that Section 15A(3) of the said Act is mandatory and not a directory.

Court’s Order 

Chief Justice Vikram Nath and Justice J. B. Pardiwala pronounced the judgement. They held that Section 15A (3) of the said Act was not ultra vires Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution. For the purpose of the bail, the provision did not impose any restriction on the discretion of the competent Court. Further, the applicant was accused of committing the bailable offence and the opportunity to hear the victim shall be decided after verifying the allegations of the victim.

Therefore, in the present case, the writ-application was rejected as the impugned provision stands right in the eyes of the law.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA). It prayed that severe restrictions...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -