TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the victim or dependent was entitled to prior notice and an opportunity of hearing before the grant of bail under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; (ii) Whether the order granting bail and the order refusing cancellation of bail were unsustainable for want of reasons and due application of mind.
Issue (i): Whether the victim or dependent was entitled to prior notice and an opportunity of hearing before the grant of bail under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Analysis: Section 15A confers a statutory right on the victim or dependent to receive reasonable, accurate and timely notice of court proceedings, including bail proceedings, and separately entitles them to be heard in proceedings relating to bail, discharge, release, parole, conviction, sentence and connected matters. The two sub-sections operate together and the notice requirement is integral to the effective exercise of the right to be heard. Compliance at a later stage in cancellation proceedings does not cure the failure to issue notice and afford hearing at the stage of grant of bail.
Conclusion: The right to prior notice and hearing was mandatory and was violated; the defect could not be cured subsequently, and the finding is against the respondent.
Issue (ii): Whether the order granting bail and the order refusing cancellation of bail were unsustainable for want of reasons and due application of mind.
Analysis: A bail order must disclose the basis on which judicial discretion is exercised. Mere recording of submissions followed by a general statement that release is just and expedient does not amount to a reasoned order. The material collected in investigation, including the final report and call data records, was not engaged with in the bail order. The subsequent order refusing cancellation also failed to address the relevant considerations governing bail. Such orders do not satisfy the standard of judicial accountability required in bail adjudication.
Conclusion: Both the grant of bail and the refusal to cancel bail were unsustainable for want of reasons and non-application of mind; the finding is in favour of the appellant.
Final Conclusion: The bail granted to the respondent was set aside and custody was directed, on the footing that statutory victim participation requirements and the duty to pass a reasoned bail order had been breached.
Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 15A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, notice to the victim or dependent and an opportunity of hearing in bail proceedings are mandatory, and a bail order must independently record reasons showing application of mind to the relevant considerations.
TaxTMI 
