Live
- Taiwanese laptop maker begins production at Chennai facility
- Broadband connectivity to all panchayats in AP by March ’25
- Drugs have reached every village, street and locality of Har: Hooda
- Sanjay alleges names being deleted from Delhi voters’ list
- State govt all set launch ‘Swarna Panchayat’ system in Jan
- TTD JEO inaugurates kiosk at Annadanam Complex
- Central, State govts taking steps to conserve endangered species
- Vidyasagar Hosp pioneers robotic partial knee replacement surgeries
- Kadapa: Chairs distributed to Anganwadi School
- ASI commences repair work of Ratna Bhandar
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.
