Delhi High Court - Orders
Anupam Gupta vs State Ps Eow Mandir Marg New Delhi & Ors on 9 February, 2023
Author: Jasmeet Singh
Bench: Jasmeet Singh
$~29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 911/2023
ANUPAM GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Manish Vashisht, Sr. Adv. with
Ms Sanjana Nangia and Mr Vanshay
Kaul, Advs.
versus
STATE PS EOW MANDIR MARG NEW DELHI & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr Aashneet Singh, APP for State
Inspector Satyabir Singh, EOW
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
ORDER
% 09.02.2023 CRL.M.A. 3504/2023 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 911/20231. This is a petition seeking quashing/setting aside of the orders dated 20.04.2022 and 14.12.2022 passed by the learned CMM, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi passed in CR No. 3481/2021 titled „State v. Amit Gupta‟ and further seeking cancellation of the bail granted to respondent Nos.2 to 4 in FIR No. 230/2019, PS-EOW, District EOW.
2. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case the petitioner was a complainant and was required to be heard before grant of bail to respondent Nos. 2 to 4. He further states that the procedure Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed byAMIT ARORA Signing Date:10.02.2023 18:04:24 envisaged under Cr.P.C has not been followed while granting bail to respondent Nos. 2 to 4.
3. The same is opposed by Mr Singh, learned APP. Mr Singh states that respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were never arrested during investigation and hence, there was no requirement for calling upon the petitioner to oppose the bail.
4. My attention has been drawn to the judgment passed by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in „Jagjeet Singh & Ors. v. Ashish Mishra alias Monu & Ors.' reported in 2022 SCC Online 453 and more particularly to paragraphs 22,23 and 24 wherein it has been stated that the rights of victim to be heard to participate at all stages of proceedings is important. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:
"22. It cannot be gainsaid that the rights of a victim under the amended CrPC are substantive, enforceable, and are another facet of human rights. The victim's right, therefore, cannot be termed or construed restrictively like a brutum fulmen [Ed. : The literal translation from the Latin approximates to "meaningless thunderbolt or lightning", and is used to convey the idea of an "empty threat" or something which is ineffective.] . We reiterate that these rights are totally independent, incomparable, and are not accessory or auxiliary to those of the State under the CrPC. The presence of "State" in the proceedings, therefore, does not tantamount to according a hearing to a "victim" of the crime.
23. A "victim" within the meaning of CrPC cannot be asked to await the commencement of trial for asserting his/her right to participate in the proceedings. He/She has a Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed byAMIT ARORA Signing Date:10.02.2023 18:04:24 legally vested right to be heard at every step post the occurrence of an offence. Such a "victim" has unbridled participatory rights from the stage of investigation till the culmination of the proceedings in an appeal or revision. We may hasten to clarify that "victim" and "complainant/informant" are two distinct connotations in criminal jurisprudence. It is not always necessary that the complainant/informant is also a "victim", for even a stranger to the act of crime can be an "informant", and similarly, a "victim" need not be the complainant or informant of a felony.
24. The abovestated enunciations are not to be conflated with certain statutory provisions, such as those present in the Special Acts like the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, where there is a legal obligation to hear the victim at the time of granting bail. Instead, what must be taken note of is that:
24.1.First, the Indian jurisprudence is constantly evolving, whereby, the right of victims to be heard, especially in cases involving heinous crimes, is increasingly being acknowledged.
24.2.Second, where the victims themselves have come forward to participate in a criminal proceeding, they must be accorded with an opportunity of a fair and effective hearing. If the right to file an appeal against acquittal, is not accompanied with the right to be heard at the time of deciding a bail application, the same may result in grave Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed byAMIT ARORA Signing Date:10.02.2023 18:04:24 miscarriage of justice. Victims certainly cannot be expected to be sitting on the fence and watching the proceedings from afar, especially when they may have legitimate grievances. It is the solemn duty of a court to deliver justice before the memory of an injustice eclipses."
5. In this view of the matter, I am of the view that the issue needs consideration.
6. Issue notice.
7. Mr Singh, learned APP accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1/State.
8. Issue notice to the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 by all modes including electronic on the petitioner taking requisite steps within one week from today, returnable on 19.04.2023.
JASMEET SINGH, J FEBRUARY 9, 2023 sr Click here to check corrigendum, if any Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed byAMIT ARORA Signing Date:10.02.2023 18:04:24