SC/ST Atrocities Act | Case Not Made Out For Releasing Accused No Ground To Not Notify Victim Regarding Bail Proceedings: Bombay High Court

A division bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Abhay S Waghwase, while granting bail to a man accused in a murder case, observed that bail application should be decided only after informing and hearing the informant or the victim.

“the present order does not speak that the notice was issued to the informant and he was heard in view of the right that has been given under Section 15A (1) and (3) of the Atrocities Act. It It cannot be said that as case is not made out for releasing an accused involving in the offence under the Atrocities Act; it is not necessary to issue notice to the informant. It is the first step that is required to be taken after the presentation of the application for bail. When right has been given to the informant or the victim, then notice should be issued and he or she should be heard and then only either order can be passed, allowing or rejecting the application”, the court held.

The court set aside a trial court’s order rejecting bail to the accused observing –

“we would like to say that the learned Special Judge has written a very cryptic order, that too, without following the mandatory provisions. It is in fact high time to tell all the Special Judges under the Atrocities Act, as to what they should consider while dealing with the bail applications. This has been told again and again but still we do not find any improvement in the same”, the court observed.

Kishor Shivdas Shinde, a 22-year-old resident of Sarangkheda in Nandurbar district, Maharashtra, was arrested on October 24, 2020, in connection with the murder of a 15-year-old girl belonging to a scheduled tribe. The girl had gone missing on the intervening night of October 22 and October 23, 2020, and her body was found in a field the next day. The postmortem report indicated that her throat was slit with a sharp weapon, and there were other surface wounds and genital injuries. A special court under the Atrocities Act denied bail to Shinde. Thus, he filed the present appeal under Section 14-A of the Act.

Advocate NL Choudhari for the appellant argued that the charge-sheet had already been filed, and the appellant's custody was no longer required for investigation purposes. He contended that the case relied heavily on an extra-judicial confession allegedly made to a witness on a phone, but the call details supporting this claim had not been collected and attached. Therefore, Choudhari sought bail for his client.

Assistant Public Prosecutor AM Phule, representing the State, and Advocate Manjushri V Narwade, advocate for the victim's family, opposed the bail plea. They argued that the murder involved an offense under Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act since the victim belonged to a scheduled tribe.

The court observed that the trial judge's order rejecting the bail application was cryptic and failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 15A of the Atrocities Act, which grants victims the right to be informed and heard during court proceedings, including bail applications.

The court opined that the case relied heavily on an extra-judicial confession, which is considered weak evidence. The court also questioned the basis for certain observations made by the trial judge regarding the motive behind the crime. Additionally, the court noted that the charge-sheet did not fully support the case presented in the FIR.

“If it is from the alleged confession then the learned Judge should consider that extra judicial confession is very weak kind of evidence. Prime consideration should be given to the restoration of the liberty. As the charge is framed and summons have been issued to the witnesses, cannot be a ground to reject the bail application. Writing of cryptic orders will have to be deprecated”, the court said.

The court ruled that the discretion under Section 439 of the CrPC should have been exercised in favour of granting bail to the appellant. Thus, Shinde was granted bail on a personal recognizance bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two solvent sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each. The appellant was also directed to reside elsewhere and not visit or reside in Sarangkheda until the trial's conclusion.

Case no. – Criminal Appeal No. 513 of 2023

Case Title – Kishor Shivdas Shinde v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.