The legal system plays a vital role in ensuring a fair balance between the rights of victims and accused individuals in criminal proceedings. Recent developments have highlighted the necessity for courts to carefully analyze and consider relevant factors, particularly concerning bail applications. This blog delves into the significance of upholding victims’ rights while also safeguarding the rights of the accused, emphasizing the court’s pivotal role in ensuring justice through a comprehensive legal analysis.
Facts
- Allegation that the Respondent-Accused provoked the driver could not be sustained as the driver and two others in the vehicle were killed by the protesters.
- High Court granted regular bail to the Respondent-Accused on 10.02.2022 after finding no firearm injuries in the inquest or injury reports.
- The Court interpreted the case as an ‘accident by hitting with the vehicle’.
- Aggrieved ‘victims’ have appealed the High Court’s decision before us.
- Respondent-Accused joined the investigation.
- Protesting farmers objected to comments made by Union Minister of State for Home.
- Route of Chief Guest changed, passing by gathering farmers.
- Incident resulted in deaths of four farmers, a journalist, the driver of a vehicle, and two others.
- Charge sheet filed and another FIR registered against unknown persons and protesting farmers.
- PIL filed expressing concerns about fairness of investigation.
- SIT reconstituted by the Court to carry out investigation.
- Respondent-Accused escaped and fired weapons during the incident.
- Farmers organized protest against Union Minister in his ancestral village.
- Respondent-Accused with armed aides drove towards protest site and allegedly drove into crowd of farmers.
- Several farmers gathered to protest against Indian Agricultural Acts of 2020.
- Relief granted on various counts.
- Program to be attended by Union Minister and Deputy Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh.
- Supporters of Respondent No.1 allegedly attacked by farmers en route to venue.
- FIR registered against Respondent No.1 and unknown persons for causing death of four farmers.
- Allegations of Respondent-Accused driving into crowd of protesting farmers and causing deaths.
- Hoarding board displaying pictures of Union Minister and Respondent-Accused damaged.
- Annual Dangal competition organized by Respondent-Accused.
Also Read: Analysis of Suppression of Information in Employment Selection: Legal Perspective
Issue
- Whether a ‘victim’ as defined under Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is entitled to be heard at the stage of adjudication of bail application of an accused.
- Whether the High Court overlooked relevant considerations in granting bail to the Respondent-Accused.
- Determining if the High Court’s order dated 10.02.2022 is illegal and requires intervention by the Supreme Court.
Also Read: Analysis of Cheating and Forgery in Passport Case
Arguments
- The Petitioner’s arguments were based on the assertion that the Respondent-Accused was not in the Thar vehicle at the time but instead at the Dangal venue.
- Reference was made to the case of Alister Anthony Pariera v. State of Maharashtra to suggest that if rash and negligent driving was preceded by a real intention to cause death, a charge under section 302 IPC may apply.
- Concern was raised that setting aside the impugned order and canceling the bail would leave the Respondent accused without any remedy and make it difficult for bail to be obtained until the conclusion of the trial.
- Citing the Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr. case, it was argued that the High Court had ignored established bail granting principles and had passed the bail order in a mechanical manner without proper consideration.
- The issue of bullet injuries outlined in FIR No 219 of 2021 was emphasized as a matter that the High Court should have prima facie considered.
- Allegations were made that counsel for the Complainant/victims were disconnected during the online proceedings and not heard by the High Court, affecting the fairness of the proceedings.
- FIR No 46 of 2022 filed by a witness, Diljot Singh, was brought to attention, stating that the application for re-hearing the bail application was not considered.
- The witness in FIR No 46 of 2022 claimed to have been threatened and attacked by the supporters of the Respondent-Accused on 10.03.2022.
- The Court was urged to consider three parameters while deciding bail: tampering with evidence, flight risk, and nature of the offense.
- The State was actively following up with witnesses, reducing the possibility of tampering.
- The Respondent-Accused had local roots, decreasing the flight risk.
- The nature of the offense was considered grave by Shri Jethmalani.
- The State had provided security under the Witness Protection Scheme for victims and witnesses.
- Shri Mahesh Jethmalani argued against bail hearings turning into mini trials and maintained the State’s opposition to the bail application.
Also Read: Discrepancy in Date of Birth: Court’s Legal Analysis
Analysis
- Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System in 2003 suggested ways to restore confidence in the criminal justice system
- International enactments in the US, Australia, and Canada recognizing victims’ rights
- Recent amendments to Cr.P.C. recognizing victim’s rights in India
- Importance of victim’s right to be heard in bail applications
- Court’s discretion in bail applications should not involve detailed assessment of evidence
- Balancing the rights of the victim, accused, and state in criminal proceedings
- High Court’s order lacking relevant considerations and legal principles
- Need for victim’s active participation in legal proceedings
- Court’s duty to consider wide-ranging factors in bail applications
- Victims’ right to participate in trial and be informed of investigation status
- Evolution of victim’s rights in criminal proceedings and acknowledgment in Indian jurisprudence
- Secondary victimisation in the form of aggressive cross-examination has been reduced through a humane interpretation of the Evidence Act.
- The judiciary has been proactive in addressing the rights of victims, but more needs to be done.
- Victims have the right to file an appeal against an order of acquittal.
- The rights of an accused currently outweigh the rights of the victim in many cases.
- The court can cancel bail if irrelevant considerations impact the bail order or if victims’ rights are denied.
- The matter is remitted back to the High Court for fair adjudication of the bail application, considering victims’ participation.
- If victims can’t afford legal counsel, the State must provide one for them.
- A recent incident serves as a reminder for State authorities to reinforce protection for witnesses and families.
- There is a need to balance and equalize the rights of victims and accused for fair criminal proceedings.
- Case law consistently recognizes the legitimacy of seeking liberty from incarceration
- Detention pending trial must not be unending
- Presumption of innocence until proven guilty must be upheld
Decision
- Respondent No.1 shall surrender and be taken into custody as already directed
- No opinion expressed on facts or merits
- All questions of law left open for the High Court to consider
Case Title: JAGJEET SINGH Vs. ASHISH MISHRA @ MONU (2022 INSC 427)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000632-000632 / 2022
