Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-005628-005631 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 22351/2025 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN |
| Bench |
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Criminal procedure; SC/ST (POA) Act; bail jurisdiction |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The appellant and a co-victim were attacked in 2020 while fencing land; FIR under IPC and SC/ST (POA) Act was registered and bail granted; while on bail, accused allegedly murdered the co-victim in 2022, prompting a second FIR; bail was cancelled, multiple applications ensued, and the High Court granted bail and directed a joint trial; the Supreme Court set aside the bail order and struck down the joint-trial direction. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and tribunals |
| Overrules | High Court’s impugned bail order in Crl.A. Nos. 359, 346, 360, 326 of 2025 |
| Follows | Hariram Bhambhi v. Satyanarayan & another (mandatoriness of Sections 15A(3) and 15A(5) SC/ST (POA) Act) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Section 15A(5) SC/ST (POA) Act requires notice and opportunity to be heard, not an exhaustive rebuttal of each victim’s submission.
- Bail orders may be annulled (rather than cancelled) if they are perverse or arbitrary, especially when prior bail cancellation and witness elimination are ignored.
- Courts must evaluate supervening circumstances (e.g., murder of a key witness while on bail) and criminal antecedents when deciding bail.
- High Courts cannot issue substantive procedural directions—such as joint-trial orders for distinct offences—at the bail stage without applying statutory tests under Sections 218–223 CrPC.
- Trial Courts retain discretion to decide joint vs separate trials at trial commencement, guided by prejudice and avoidance of delay.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Section 15A(5) of the SC/ST (POA) Act embodies audi alteram partem for victims; notice plus opportunity to participate satisfies the mandate without requiring detailed reasoning on each objection (paras 11.3–11.6).
- Distinction between cancellation (triggered by supervening misconduct) and annulment (vitiation at source) of bail orders: annullment is warranted where the order is perverse, illegal, or shows non-application of mind (paras 12.1–12.5).
- The High Court ignored critical factors—prior bail cancellation, witness murder, gravity of offences under Section 3(2)(va) SC/ST (POA) Act, criminal antecedents—rendering its bail order manifestly perverse (paras 12.1–12.4).
- Joint trial is an exception: Sections 218–223 CrPC (and Section 242 BNSS) allow joinder only for offences of the same kind within twelve months; the decision is a discretionary, threshold exercise by the trial Court, not a bail-stage directive (paras 13.1–13.7).
- Applying settled principles, the Supreme Court set aside the bail order and struck down the joint-trial direction, directing surrender and independent trial on merits (para 14).
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant / Defacto Complainant)
- Section 15A(5) SC/ST (POA) Act mandates hearing; High Court ignored victim’s detailed objections.
- No fresh grounds for bail; prior bail misuse culminated in co-victim’s murder while on bail.
- Accused intimidated witnesses, stalled trial; bail grant was arbitrary and prejudicial.
- Joint-trial direction misapplied the exception to separate-trial rule for distinct offences.
Respondent No. 1 (State)
- High Court overlooked earlier orders cancelling bail and findings of witness intimidation and non-cooperation.
- Accused misused bail to commit murder, disrupted committal and trial proceedings, threatened witnesses, and were declared “Goondas.”
- The impugned order lacks meaningful discussion of offence gravity and witness safety.
Respondent Nos. 3–7 (Accused)
- The dispute is rooted in civil encroachment litigation; FIRs are alleged to be false and mala fide.
- No criminal antecedents; accused are social workers respected locally; the trial is yet to commence.
- Victim’s group orchestrated witness murder to frame the accused; majority of co-accused remain on bail without incident.
- The appellant selectively challenged only the Section 307 IPC bail order, indicating ulterior motives.
Factual Background
In February 2020 the appellant and his friend Suresh were assaulted with deadly weapons while fencing land, leading to an FIR under multiple IPC sections and Section 3(2)(va) SC/ST (POA) Act. The accused were granted bail but allegedly murdered Suresh in December 2022, prompting a second FIR under Section 302 IPC. The High Court cancelled bail, multiple bail applications followed, and eventually granted bail plus a joint-trial direction. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, annulled the bail order, struck down the joint-trial direction, and ordered the accused to surrender.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 15A(5), SC/ST (POA) Act: mandatory right of victims/dependents to be heard in bail and related proceedings; compliance requires notice plus opportunity, not exhaustive reasoning.
- Section 218 CrPC: separate trials as the rule; Sections 219–223 CrPC: limited joinder exceptions for offences of the same kind within twelve months.
- Section 242 BNSS: pari materia with Section 219 CrPC, allowing up to five offences of the same kind.
- Distinction between cancellation (post-bail misconduct) and annulment (order vitiated at inception) of bail orders under constitutional jurisdiction (Shabeen Ahmad).
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms mandatoriness of Sections 15A(3) and 15A(5) SC/ST (POA) Act.