Live
- Heavy snow forecast in Japan through Tuesday
- Legendary film-maker Shyam Benegal is no more
- Hackers steal over $12.7 billion in over 1,000 crypto heists to date
- BGT: 'Rohit is short of confidence with self-doubts', opines Manjrekar
- Gold gains 30 pc in 2024, silver 35 pc up on COMEX this year: MOFSL
- Delhi HC dismisses anticipatory bail plea of ex-IAS trainee officer Puja Khedkar
- Untouched Goa Beaches You Must Visit in January
- Muzigal launches its State-of-the-art Music Academy in Nallagandla, Hyderabad
- Thoughtful Christmas Gifts for Every Loved One
- South Korea: Finance minister silent on martial law probe amid speculation on acting president's role
SC cancels bail granted to two in minor’s gangrape case
Taking a strong exception to the fact that neither the accused nor the public prosecutor nor the Allahabad HC in-formed the minor survivor about the bail hearing
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has set aside the Allahabad High Court order granting bail to two persons, accused of kidnapping and gangraping a 14 year-old minor, and expressed displeasure for not making the survivor a party during the bail plea hearing.
A bench comprising Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma asked the accused – Khargesh alias Golu and Karan – to surrender before the trial court on or before December 30. The bench in the process allowed the survivor’s plea, filed through advocate Pranav Sachdeva, seeking cancellation of the bail granted by the Allahabad High Court.
Taking a strong exception to the fact that neither the accused nor the public prosecutor nor the Allahabad HC informed the minor survivor about the bail hearing, the bench said, “In the instant case, there is gross violation of the said statutory provisions contained in Section 439(1A) of CrPC and Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST Act, at the instance of the respondents.”
The high court in the impugned order also did not consider the mandatory re-quirement of both the Acts and granted bail to the respondents in a very casu-al and cursory manner, without assigning any cogent reasons, though they were prima facie involved in a very serious offence, noted the bench’s order on December 13. The apex court held the bail orders were in “utter disregard” of the mandatory provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act while setting them aside. “It appears that the respondents concerned -- accused had not impleaded the present appellant as the party respondent in the bail proceedings filed by them before the high court, and the public prosecutor concerned also had not in-formed the appellant victim about the said proceedings,” it said. Referring to the legal provisions, the bench said the presence of the survivor or any person authorised by him or her was obligatory at the time of hearing of the application for bail to the person in cases related to rape and gangrape.
“Similarly, it is also mandatory on the part of the special public prosecutor of the state government to inform the victim about the court proceedings, includ-ing bail proceedings as contemplated in sub-section (3) of Section 15A of the SC/ST Act,” the bench said.
