Background
The Delhi High Court has held that a victim who sets the criminal law in motion is entitled to participate in the criminal proceedings, including the hearing of an accused’s regular bail application. Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed that a prosecutrix in a rape case shall be given an opportunity to be present and heard before the accused’s bail application is decided.
The Court made the observation while dealing with a petition filed by the prosecutrix challenging a trial court order that granted regular bail to the accused without issuing notice to her. The criminal case arose from an FIR registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
The trial court had granted bail within three days of the accused’s application. The prosecutrix challenged the order on the ground that she had not been notified or given an opportunity to participate in the bail proceedings.
Legal Issue
The central issue before the High Court was whether the prosecutrix was entitled to notice and an opportunity of hearing before the accused’s regular bail application was considered.
The Court examined Section 483(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which deals with bail applications in specified sexual offence cases and requires the presence of the informant or a person authorised by the informant at the hearing.
The Court also considered the Delhi High Court’s Practice Direction concerning the manner in which an informant is to be notified about a bail application.
The High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra, where the Court recognised the victim’s right to participate in criminal proceedings and held that such rights are substantive and enforceable.
It also relied upon Ms. X v. State of Maharashtra, in which the Supreme Court reiterated that the prosecutrix’s right to be heard cannot be curtailed merely because the State is represented by the prosecution.
Court Ruling
Applying these principles, the Delhi High Court held that a victim who sets the criminal law in motion by filing a complaint is entitled to an opportunity to participate at all stages of the criminal proceedings, including proceedings concerning the accused’s regular bail.
The Court observed that the prosecutrix in the present case had not been given notice before the trial court granted regular bail. The High Court therefore held that the bail order could not be sustained on account of this procedural failure.
The Court also took note of the fact that the regular bail application had been decided within three days. It set aside the trial court’s order and remanded the bail application for fresh consideration after providing the prosecutrix an opportunity of hearing.
Importantly, the High Court clarified that it was not examining the merits of the accused’s case or deciding whether the accused was otherwise entitled to bail. The order was set aside only because the prosecutrix had not received the required notice and opportunity to be heard.
The matter was directed to be reconsidered by the Trial Court, preferably within two weeks.
The High Court further directed that the accused shall not be re-arrested until fresh adjudication of the bail application. This direction was made because the existing bail order had been set aside only on the limited ground of failure to hear the prosecutrix.
Implications
The judgment reinforces the procedural rights available to victims in criminal proceedings. It makes clear that the victim’s right to participate in a bail hearing is distinct from the question of whether the accused ultimately satisfies the requirements for bail.
For cases involving specified sexual offences, Section 483(2) BNSS provides an important statutory safeguard concerning the presence of the informant or an authorised person during bail proceedings. Courts are also required to follow the applicable procedure for notifying the informant.
The ruling further clarifies that the presence of the State through the prosecution does not, by itself, eliminate the victim’s independent right to be heard where the law provides such participation.
The judgment adds clarity on the victim’s right to participate in bail proceedings and the procedural safeguards that courts shall follow before deciding regular bail in specified sexual offence cases.
Case: Ms G v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Justice Saurabh Banerjee
Key Provisions: Section 376 IPC, Section 69 BNS, Section 483(2) BNSS
Issue: Victim’s right to notice and hearing in regular bail proceedings
