LAWS(DLH)-2024-2-131

X Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

Decided On February 14, 2024
X Appellant
V/S
STATE NCT OF DELHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal has been filed under Sec. 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, 'SC & ST Act') by the alleged victim, challenging the order dtd. 1/4/2023 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Impugned Order') passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-02 (South-District), Saket Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court') granting bail to the Respondent No. 2 herein in FIR no.0077/2022 registered with Police Station: Hauz Khas, South-District, Delhi, under Ss. 376/354B/506 IPC & 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v) of SC & ST Act.

(2.) The limited challenge of the appellant to the Impugned Order is that the same has been passed without serving notice of the application filed by the respondent no.2 seeking bail in the above FIR on the appellant/victim. The learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that the Impugned Order has, therefore, been passed in violation of Sec. 15A(3) and Sec. 15A(5) of the SC & ST Act. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hariram Bhambhi v. Satyanarayan & Anr., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1010, he submits that as the respondent no.2 has been granted bail without serving the notice of the bail application on the appellant and without giving her an opportunity of hearing and opposing the same, the Impugned Order is liable to be set aside on this limited ground itself. He submits that the appellant is not to plead or show the grounds for cancellation of the bail.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned senior counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that, in the present case, the learned Trial Court, after hearing the appellant as well, had enlarged the respondent no.2 on bail vide its order dtd. 9/2/2022. Thereafter, a charge sheet was filed by the respondent no.1 accusing the respondent no. 2 of offence under Ss. 376/354B/506 IPC. It was only by way of a supplementary charge sheet, that the prosecution alleged that the respondent no.2 has also committed offence under Sec. 3(1)(w)(i) and Sec. 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST Act.