2021 INSC 0696 1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No. 1278 of 2021 Hariram Bhambhi … Appellant Versus Satyanarayan & Anr. … Respondent s J U D G M E N T Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J 1. Leave granted. 2. On 9 June 2018, the appellant lodged a report at Police Station Kishangarh, District Ajmer on the basis of which FIR No.116/2018 for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Penal Code was registered. In his complaint, the appellant stated that on 8 June 2018, his younger brother Ram Niwas had gone out for carrying out labour work. The appellant was informed by his mother that evening that Ram Niwas was a way to meet his brother -in –law, Kishan Lal , and that he would 9 not being taken very kindly by the others. When they assert their rights and resist practices of un- touchability against them or demand statutory minimum wages or refuse to do any bonded and forced labour, the vested interests try to cow them down and terr orise them. When the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes try to preserve their self -respect or honour of their women, they become irritants for the dominant and the mighty. Occupation and cultivation of even the government allotted land by the Schedu led Castes and the Scheduled Tribes is resented and' more often these people become victims of attacks by the vested interests of late, there has been an increase in the disturbing trend of commission of certain atrocities like making the Scheduled Castes persons eat inedible substances like human excreta and attacks on and mass killings of helpless Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and rape of women belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Under the circumstances, the existing laws l ike the protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and the normal provisions of the Indian Penal Code have been found to be inadequate to check these crimes. A special legislation to check and deter crimes against them committed by non- Scheduled Castes and non- S cheduled Tribes has, therefore, become necessary. 3. The term 'atrocity' has not been defined so far. It is considered necessary that not only the term 'atrocity' should be defined but stringent measures should be introduced to provide for higher punishments for committing such atrocities. It is also proposed to enjoining, on the States and the Union territories to take specific preventive and punitive measures to protect the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes from being victimised and where atrociti es are committed, to provide adequate relief and assistance to rehabilitate them. 4. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objects.” 11. Section 15A, which comes under Chapter IV-A of the SC/S T Act titled ‘Rights of victims and witnesses ’, was introduced by way of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, which came into 10 effect on 26 January 2016. The Statement of Objects and Reasons that accompanied the insertion of Chapter IV -A reads as follows: “(h) to inser t a new Chapter IVA relating to “Rights of Victims and Witnesses” to impose certain duties and responsibilities upon the State for making necessary arrangements for protection of victims, their dependents and witnesses against any kind of intimidation, coercion or inducement or violence or threats of violence”(emphasis supplied).” 12. Investigations in India are the exclusive domain of the police, where victims are often relegated to the role of being a spectator in the criminal justice system . Victims of crime often face significant hurdles during investigation and prosecution. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes specifically suffer on account of procedural lapses in the criminal justice system. They face insurmountable hurdles in accessing justice from the stage of filing the complaint to the conclusion of the trial. Due to the fear of retribution from members of upper caste groups, ignorance or police apathy, many victims do not register complaints in the first place. If victim s or their relatives muster up the courage to approach the police, the police officials are reluctant to register complaints or do not record allegations accurately. Eventually, if the case does get registered, the victims and witnesses are vulnerable to intimidation, violence and social and economic boycott. 8 Further, many perpetrators of caste- based atrocities get away scot -free due to shoddy investigations and the negligence of prosecuting advocates. 9 This results in low conviction rates under the SC/ST Act giving ri se to the erroneous perception that cases registered under the Act are false 8 C Prabhu, Protecting the Rights of Victims and Witnesses in Caste-Based Atrocities , Centre for Law and Policy Research Blog, available at https://clpr.org.in/blog/protecting- the-rights -of -victims -witnesses -in-caste -based-atrocities/ (15 September 2020), last accessed on 27 October 2021. 9 Subhradipta Sarkar , The Quest for Victims’ Justice in India, Human Rights Brief 17(2) (2010), p.16-20. 11 and that it is being misused. On the contrary, the reality is that many acquittals are a result of improper investigation and prosecution of crime, leading to insufficient evidence . This is evident from the low percentage of cases attracting the application of the provisions of the Penal Code relating to false c omplaints as compared to the rate of acquittals. 10 13. Section 15A of the SC/ST Act contains important provisions that safeguard the rights of the victims of caste -based atrocities and witnesses. Sub-section s (3) and (5) of Section 15A specifically make the victim or their dependent an active stakeholder in the criminal proceedings . These provisions enable a member of the marginalized caste to effectively pursue a case and counteract the effects of defective investigations. S ub-sections (1 ) to (5 ) of Section 15A are extracted below : “ 15A(1) It shall be the duty and responsibility of the State to make arrangements for the protection of victims, their dependents, and witnesses against any kind of intimidation or coercion or inducement or violence or threats of violence. (2) A victim shall be treated with fairness, respect and dignity and with due regard to any special need that arises because of the victims age or gender or educational disadvantage or poverty. (3) A victim or his dependent shall have the right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any C ourt proceeding including any bail proceeding and the Special Public Prosecutor or the State Government shall inform the victim about any proceedings under this Act. (4) A victim or his dependent shall have the right to apply to the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court, as the case may be, to summon parties for production of any documents or material, witnesses or examine the persons present. (5) A victim or his dependent shall be entitled to be heard at any proceeding under this Act in respect of b ail, 10 Sthabir Khora, Misconstruction of the Anti -atrocities Act’s Misuse , Economic and Political W eekly 53 (15) (14 April 2018). 12 discharge, release, parole, conviction or sentence of an accused or any connected proceedings or arguments and file written submission on conviction, acquittal or sentencing. ” (emphasis added) 14. Sub -section (3) of Section 15A confers a statutory right on the victim or their dependent s to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any court proceeding including a bail proceeding. In addition, sub- section (3) requires a Special Public Prosecutor or the State Government to inform the vict im about any proceeding under the Act. S ub-section (3) confers a right to a prior notice, this being evident from the use of the expression “reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any court proceeding including any bail proceeding”. Sub- section (5) provides for a right to be heard to the victim or to a dependent. The expression “dependent” is defined in Section 2( bb) thus: “2(bb) “dependent” means the spouse, children, parents, brother and sister of the victim, who are dependent wholly or mainly on such victim for his support and maintenance;” The provisions of sub -section (3 ) which stipulate the requirement of notice and of sub -section (5) which confers a right to be heard must be construed harmoniously. The requirement of issuing a notice facilit ates the right to be heard. 15. Many High Court decisions have noted that Section 15A was introduced to protect the right s of the victims and witnesses whose rights as equal beneficiaries of the criminal justice system are often overlooked due to their weak s ocial position. 13 The Madhya Pradesh High Court , in Sunita Gandharva v. State of MP & Anr , 11while highlighting the purpose of the amendment inserting Section 15A observed that: “21. With the years of experience, it was found that due to some vagueness in the definitions and some procedural inertia, the purpose of Act lacked fulfilment, therefore, to make it more victim oriented, the Amendment Act was introduced. 22. With the legislative intent reiterated in the letter, no iota of doubt exists that intention of the Amendment Act was for Speedy Trial and Protection of Victims' Rights. By way of Section 2 (ec) Victim has been defined and beside Section 14- A, Section 15- A, “Rights of victim and witnesses” was introduced to take care of them for the first time. Defi nition of Victim includes -relatives, legal guardian and legal heirs and this definition is much wider than the definition of Victim provided in Section 2 (wa) of Cr.P.C. which includes guardian or legal heir, not the relatives. Similarly, Section 15A of At rocities Act provides an extensive mechanism for protection of Victims/Witnesses. Even the victim has been given a chance to appear before the Court at the time of hearing of bail application. Right of the Court to cancel or revoke the bail is one of the m easures by which protection of Victims/Witnesses can be ensured…” 16. The Gujarat High Court in Hemal Ashwin Jain v. Union of India 12 observed that: “ 37. The victims, even today, have no semblance of rights at the investigation stage and a feeble position at the trial stage of a criminal prosecution. …… 53. We are also not impressed by the argument of Mr.Popat that Section 15A(3) of the Amendment Act should be 11 2020 SCC OnLine MP 2193 12 R/Special Civil Application No. 6369 of 2020 (Gujarat High Court), available at https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-380514.pdf (last accessed on 27 October 2021). 14 construed as directory and not mandatory. As is evident from a plain reading of the section quoted above, the victim must be served with notice of the bail application and must be provided an opportunity to be heard and advance argument. When a statute specifically provides a right to the victim/dependent to be heard at any proceedings in respect of bail, and if the court fails to provide such opportunity, then there is an inherent failure of justice. This procedure, in our opinion, cannot be bypassed. The non- compliance of the provision of Section 15A(3) of the Amendment Act would render an order null and void. If Section 15A(3) of the Amendment Act is to be construed as directory, then the very object and purpose with which such provision is enacted would got frustrated.” 61. In such circumstances referred to above, we hold that Section 15A(3) of the Amen dment Act is mandatory and not directory ” (emphasis supplied). 17. The finding of the Gujarat High Court that the requirement of issuing notice of a court proceeding to a victim or a dependent under Section 15A (3) , in order to provide them an opportunity of being heard, is mandatory , finds echo in multiple High Court decisions 13 including a decision of the Rajasthan High Court 14. We find ourselves in agreement with the proposition and hold that sub- sections (3) and (5) of Section 15A are mandatory in nature. 18. In the present case, it is evident that the right to notice and to be heard w ere violated. Initially, when S.B. Criminal Appeal No.1132/2019 was heard by the High Court against the denial of bail by the S pecial Judge in the first bail application, the appellant was present through counsel. The appeal under Section 14A(2) of the 13 Ajeet Chaudhary v. State of UP, 2021 SCC OnLine All 417 (Allahabad High Court); Basheer M. v. State of Kerala, 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 1675 (Kerala High Court); and Marenna and Ors. v. The State & Ors., 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 1077 (Karnataka High Court). 14 Abid v. State of Rajasthan , 2020 SCC OnLine Raj 2703. 15 SC/ST Act was not pressed by the first respondent and was accordingly dismissed. Section 14A(2) is in the following terms: “14A(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (3) of section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal shall lie to the High Court against an order of the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court granting or refusing bail.” 19. When the High Court entertained S.B. Criminal Appeal No.2518/2019 on 7 November 2019, no notice was given to the appellant. The High Court allowed the application for bail. When the appellant moved the High Court for cancellation of bail, the Single Judge took the view that compliance with the principles of natural justice at that particular stage would cure the deficiency. There has been a clear infraction of the mandate of the statute. Sub- sections (3 ) and (5 ) have been introduced by the Parliament to ensur e a right to be heard to the person against whom the offence is committed or to the dependents. These provisions must be scrupulously observed. We cannot agree with the finding of the Single Judge that the defect in not issuing notice to the victim or their dependent and depriving them of the opportunity to be heard in the concerned proceedings (for grant of bail) can be cured by providing them a hearing in a proceeding that arose subsequently (for cancellation of bail). Compliance with the principles of natural justice must be observed at every stage under the mandate of the statute. 20. Atrocities against members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are not a thing of the past. They continue to be a reality in our society even today. Hence the statutory provisions which have been enacted by Parliament a s a 16 measure of protecting the constitutional rights of persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes must be complied with and enforced conscientiously . There has been an evident breach of the statutory requirements embodied in sub- sections (3) and (5) of Section 15A in the present case. 21. We also emphasize that sub-section (3) of Section 15A provides that a reasonable and timely notice must be issued to the victim or their dependent . This would entail that the notice is served upon victims or their dependents at the first or earliest possible instance. If undue delay is caused in the issuance of notice, the victim , or as the case may be, their dependents, would remain uninformed of the progress made in the case and it would prejudice their rights to effectively oppose the defense of the accused. It would also ultimately delay the bail proceedings or the trial, a ffecting the rights of the accused as well. 22. Quite apart from the infraction of the provisions of the SC/ST A ct, there has been no application of mind by the S ingle Judge of the High Court to the considerations that govern the grant of bail. This Court recently in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana 15, of which one of us was a part (Justice DY Chandrachud) , ha s elaborated on the considerations that govern the grant of bail. This Court also emphasized that recording of reasons by a judge is not a task in formality, but an exercise of judicial accountability and transparency, which makes the decision available for further scrutiny at the touchstone of reason and justice. This Court observed: 15 (2021) 6 SCC 230 17 “39. Grant of bail under Section 439 CrPC is a matter involving the exercise of judicial discretion. Judicial discretion in granting or refusing bail —as in the case of any other discretion which is vested in a court as a judicial institution — is not unstructured. The duty to record reasons is a significant safeguard which ensures that the discretion which is entrusted to the court is exercised in a judicious manner. The recording of reasons in a judicial order ensures that the thought process underlying the order is subject to scrutiny and that it meets objective standards of reason and justice…. 40. We are also constrained to record our disapproval of the manner in which the appl ication for bail of Vishan (A -6) was disposed of. The High Court sought to support its decision to grant bail by stating that it had perused the material on record and was granting bail “without discussing the evidence in detail” taking into consideration: (1) the facts of the case; (2) the nature of allegations; (3) gravity of offences; and (4) role attributed to the accused.” 23. While granting bail to the first respondent, the High Court in its order dated 7 November 2019 only recorded the submission of counsel for the first respondent that PW -2, the spouse of the deceased, had in the course of her statement recorded during the trial, stated that the deceased had gone with her brother Kishan Lal; that Kishan Lal had obtained an insurance policy in the name of the deceased and that the murder had been committed by Kishan Lal to obtain the proceeds of the insurance policy, with the help of his friends. There is absolutely no reasoning in the order of the High Court granting bail, after recording the submissions of the first respondent’s counsel apart from noting that the public prosecutor had opposed the bail. The High Court held that it was just and expedient to release the first 18 respondent on bail “keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case”. Suc h orders cannot pass muster. The duty to record reasons cannot be obviated by recording submissions, followed by an omnibus “in the facts and circumstances” formula. Brief reasons which indicate the basis for granting bail are essential, for it is the reas ons adduced by the court which indicate the basis of the order. 24. Before the High Court granted bail by its order dated 7 November 2019, the final report had been submitted on 6 September 2018. The final report under Section 173 CrPC contains a detailed analysis of the call data records of the accused who were in continuous contact with each other, as well as of their location in close proximity to the date and time of the incident. The bail order does not make any mention of factors that are relevant for t he grant of bail, which are (i) the seriousness and gravity of the offence; and (ii) the role attributed to the first respondent in the commission of the crime. In this backdrop, the order of the High Court in granting bail cannot pass muster . Aggrieved b y the order, the appellant had filed an application 16 seeking its recall. The Single Judge of the High Court by the impugned order dated 8 June 2021 simply reiterated that the bail was granted on the basis of the statement of the wife of the deceased, PW.2, once again failing to show any engagement with the considerations that govern the grant of bail. 25. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order of the Single Judge of the High Court of Judica tu re a t Rajasthan dated 8 June 2021 in S.B. Cr l B ail Cancellation Application No. 21/2020 is set aside. The order granting bail to the 16 S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Cancellation Application No. 21/2020 19 first respondent dated 7 November 2019 shall stand set aside. The first respondent shall surrender into custody on or before 7 November 2021. 26. The observations made during the course of this judgment are only for the purpose of considering the grant of bail to the first respondent and shall not have a bearing on the merits of the case as such. 27. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. ……..…………………...........................J. [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud] ………………………...........................J. [BV Nagarathna] New Delhi; October 29, 2021.