Mandatory Victim Hearing under SC/ST Act is Pre-requisite for Valid Bail in Sessions-Triable Offences

The petitioner, an Inspector in the BSF, was accused of deceiving the respondent (victim) into a sexual relationship and a "living relation" by falsely claiming to be a bachelor and performing a symbolic marriage ceremony at a temple.

The victim later discovered the petitioner was already married with children.

An FIR was lodged under Sections 376, 419, and 326 of the IPC, and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), West Tripura, granted interim bail to the petitioner on 28.07.2025.

However, the Additional Sessions Judge cancelled this bail on 21.11.2025, noting that the petitioner had allegedly threatened the victim after his release (G.D. Entry No. 26).

The petitioner moved the High Court under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS) to set aside the cancellation order.

Whether the Magistrate (CJM) had the jurisdiction to grant bail in a case involving offences exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions and punishable with life imprisonment.

Whether the non-compliance with the mandatory notice requirement to the victim under Section 15-A(3) of the SC/ST Act vitiated the original bail order.

The court applied Section 437 of the CrPC, which restricts a Magistrate's power to grant bail if there appear reasonable grounds for believing the accused is guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life.

It relied on Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi, establishing that Magistrates should generally direct such accused to the Court of Sessions.

Crucially, the court applied Section 15-A(3) and (5) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which mandates providing reasonable and timely notice of bail proceedings to the victim.

This was supported by Hariram Bhambhi v. Satyanarayan and Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra, which hold that the victim has a statutory right to be heard and that non-compliance renders a bail order null and void.

The Court reasoned that the CJM exceeded his jurisdiction by granting bail for an offence under Section 376 IPC (exclusively triable by Sessions) without adequately negating the grounds of guilt as required by Section 437 CrPC.

The Court found that the CJM prematurely concluded at a "nascent stage of investigation" that Section 376 would not be attracted.

Furthermore, there was a total failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act; the victim was neither notified nor heard during the bail hearing.

The Court also took note of the State’s submission regarding a post-release threat issued by the petitioner to the victim, which justified the Sessions Court’s decision to cancel the bail to protect the integrity of the proceedings.

The Court held that the CJM's order was procedurally and legally infirm due to lack of jurisdiction and non-compliance with victim-participation mandates.

The petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to surrender before the CJM on or before 06.03.2026.

However, noting that a compromise was reportedly being negotiated, the Court granted the parties liberty to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate for a fresh bail plea based on new facts, to be decided without bias from this judgment.