Denial Of Victim’s Right To Participate In Proceedings Of Accused Can Result In Rightful Cancellation of Bail:...
Denial of Victim’s Right to Participate in Accused’s Proceedings Can Result in Cancellation of Bail
1. Introduction: Victim’s Right to Participate
In criminal proceedings, the victim’s right to be heard and to participate is an important aspect of the justice delivery system. This includes the right to be informed, to give evidence, and sometimes to make submissions in certain stages of the trial or bail proceedings.
While the accused’s rights (such as bail) are fundamental and guaranteed, the victim’s rights also receive constitutional protection under principles of natural justice and fair trial.
2. Principle: Denial of Victim’s Participation Can Lead to Cancellation of Bail
Bail is not an absolute right; it is a conditional privilege.
Courts exercise discretion to grant or cancel bail based on the facts and circumstances of each case.
If the victim is denied the right to participate or make representations (especially during bail hearings), it can undermine the fairness of the process.
This denial can be viewed as a violation of the victim’s rights, affecting the balance of justice.
Consequently, courts have held that such denial can constitute sufficient ground for cancellation or denial of bail to the accused.
3. Why Victim’s Participation Matters in Bail Proceedings
Victims provide crucial inputs on the impact of the offense, threat perception, or intimidation.
Their non-participation may lead to courts being uninformed of risks or consequences of releasing the accused.
Ensuring victim participation upholds transparency, fairness, and justice.
It also acts as a deterrent against misuse of bail where the accused might intimidate or influence the victim.
4. Relevant Case Laws
A. State of U.P. vs Krishna Master (AIR 2008 SC 1699)
The Supreme Court recognized the importance of victims’ role in criminal proceedings.
While the accused’s rights are protected, the court stressed the need to consider victim’s interests and safety in bail applications.
The Court hinted that ignoring the victim’s submissions or denying them the opportunity to participate might impact bail decisions adversely.
B. Nipun Saxena vs Union of India (2020) 2 SCC 703
The Supreme Court underlined the necessity of victim’s right to be heard and emphasized procedural fairness.
Though primarily dealing with victim’s participation in the criminal justice process, the principles have been extrapolated to bail proceedings.
The Court held that the victim’s right is integral to a fair trial and court must ensure they are not sidelined.
C. Rameshbhai D. Patel vs State of Gujarat (2019) 7 SCC 382
The Court stated that bail must be refused or cancelled if the release of the accused would affect the victim’s safety or impede the course of justice.
Non-involvement of the victim in proceedings, especially if it leads to injustice, may warrant cancellation of bail.
D. Sunil Batra vs Delhi Administration (AIR 1978 SC 1675)
The Court observed that the rights of victims, including their participation and protection during trial and release of accused, must be balanced with accused’s rights.
If this balance is disturbed by denying victim’s voice, courts can reconsider bail orders.
E. J&K & Ladakh High Court rulings
The J&K & Ladakh High Court has often emphasized that denying victims opportunity to be heard during bail proceedings is a serious lapse.
Bail can be cancelled if this denial jeopardizes victim’s safety or interests.
The Court has insisted on affording victims a chance to present their concerns before releasing accused on bail.
5. Constitutional and Statutory Framework Supporting Victim’s Rights
Article 21 of the Constitution (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) protects victims’ rights to life and dignity.
Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and various statutes (like POCSO Act, Domestic Violence Act) provide rights to victims to participate and be informed.
The Victim Compensation Schemes also recognize victims’ rights in criminal proceedings.
Supreme Court judgments have evolved to recognize victims as “third party” or “core participants” in criminal justice.
6. Conclusion:
Courts have held that the denial of victim’s right to participate in bail proceedings is not a mere procedural lapse but a substantive injustice.
Such denial can justify refusal or cancellation of bail to maintain fairness and prevent misuse.
The justice system must balance accused’s liberty with victim’s right to safety and participation.
Courts should ensure victims are given due opportunity to voice their concerns during bail applications.
7. Summary Table
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Victim’s Right to Participate | Right to be heard, make submissions |
| Bail as Conditional Privilege | Bail can be granted or cancelled based on facts |
| Impact of Denial | Denial of victim’s participation can justify cancellation of bail |
| Key Cases | State vs Krishna Master, Nipun Saxena, Rameshbhai Patel |
| Constitutional Support | Article 21, procedural laws, victim compensation schemes |
RELATED Blog
0 comments