Jeetu @ Ranjeet Rawat vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and 5 Others

Heard Mr. R. B. S. Rathore, learned counsel for appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Mr. Kuldeep, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 6.

¶10

1A. Objections filed on behalf of respondents no.2 to 6 are taken on record. Learned AGA has waived his right for filing of objections.

¶11

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with a prayer to set aside order dated 18.11.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lucknow in Bail Application No.8713 of 2025 (Pratap Narain Singh & Ors. versus State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No.02 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 308, 323, 504 I.P.C. & Sections 3(1)(Da) (Dha) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Mohanlal Ganj District Lucknow.

¶12

Learned counsel for appellant submits that FIR lodged as Case Crime No.7 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 308, 323 & 504 IPC read with Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST Act was registered by appellant in Police Station Mohanlal Ganj, District Lucknow in which the respondents no.2 to 6 were granted regular bail and were subsequently also enlarged on bail vide order dated 18.11.2025, the

¶13

CRLA No. 274 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

cancellation of which is being sought.

¶16

It is submitted that a perusal of the bail application dated 13.10.2025 will reveal that despite the fact that provisions of SC/ST Act has been revoked, neither the victim nor his dependents were impleaded as respondents. It is submitted that therefore no notices were issued to the victim or to his dependents. It is submitted that nonetheless on obtaining knowledge with regard to the bail application having been filed, the appellant has not only as a victim but also as dependent of one of the victim filed objections dated 18.11.2025 but the same have been completely ignored while granting bail to the respondents no.2 to 6. He has adverted to provisions of Section 15-A(3) of the SC/ST Act 1989 to submit as well as to the judgments of Supreme Court in the cases of Hariram Bhambhi vs. Satyanarayan & Ors. reported in AIR 2021 SC 5610 and Victim X versus State of Bihar & Anr. (Arising out of SLP (Clr.) No.(S) 4335 of 2024 to submit that provisions of Section 15-A are mandatory in nature and were required to be scrupulously followed and the infringement of which vitiates the bail order.

¶17

Learned counsel for respondents has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for appellant with the submission that notwithstanding the fact that the victim or his dependents were not impleaded as opposite parties in the bail application, they nonetheless appeared before the trial Court prior to hearing on bail application and objections were also filed. It is therefore submitted that the mandatory provisions of Section 15-A(3) of the Act therefore stood satisfied.

¶18

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident and admitted that while applying for bail in the application dated 13.10.2025, neither the victim nor any of his dependent has been arrayed as opposite party in the bail application and therefore admittedly no notices were ever issued as contemplated under Section 15-A (3) of the SC/ST Act.

¶19

Nonetheless on obtaining knowledge with regard to pendency of

¶20

CRLA No. 274 of 2026

¶21

3

¶22

the bail application, the appellant as a victim as well as a dependent of one of the victim appeared on the date fixed and file his objections to the bail application.

¶23

However a perusal of the order dated 18.11.2025 granting bail to the respondents no.2 to 6, it is evident that there is absolutely no mention of appearance or of the objections of the appellant or any other victim or dependent of any victim. The order also does not advert at all to the objections which were filed to the bail application.

¶24

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Hariram Bhambhi (supra) has clearly enunciated that the provisions of Section 15-A (3) and (5) are mandatory in nature. It has also been held that the aforesaid provisions are required to be scrupulously observed and did not agree with the finding of Gujarat High Court that since the victim and the dependent have been heard subsequently in proceedings for cancellation of bail, it would envisage substantial compliance of Section 15-A SC/ST Act. The relevant paragraphs of judgment is as follows:

¶25

"18. The finding of the Gujarat High Court that the requirement of issuing notice of a court proceeding to a victim or a dependent under Section 15-A(3), in order to provide them an opportunity of being heard, is mandatory, finds echo in multiple High Court decisions [Ajeet Chaudhary v. State of U.P., 2021 SCC OnLine All 17; Basheer M. v. State of Kerala, 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 1675; and Marenna v. State, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 1077.] including a decision of the Rajasthan High Court [Abid v. State of Rajasthan, 2020 SCC OnLine Raj 2703] . We find ourselves in agreement with the proposition and hold that sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 15-A are mandatory in nature.

¶26

19. In the present case, it is evident that the right to notice and to be heard were violated. Initially, when S.B. Criminal Appeal No.1132 of 2019 was heard by the High Court against the denial of bail by the Special Judge in the first bail application, the appellant was present through counsel. The appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act was not pressed by the first respondent and was

¶27

CRLA No. 274 of 2026

¶28

4

¶29

accordingly dismissed. Section 14-A(2) is in the following terms:

¶30

“14-A. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (3) of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal shall lie to the High Court against an order of the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court granting or refusing bail.”

¶31

20. When the High Court entertained S.B. Criminal Appeal No.2518 of 2019 on 7-11-2019, no notice was given to the appellant. The High Court allowed [Satyanarayan v. State of Rajasthan, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 7817] the application for bail. When the appellant moved the High Court for cancellation of bail, the Single Judge took the view that compliance with the principles of natural justice at that particular stage would cure the deficiency. There has been a clear infraction of the mandate of the statute. Sub-sections (3) and (5) have been introduced by the Parliament to ensure a right to be heard to the person against whom the offence is committed or to the dependents. These provisions must be scrupulously observed. We cannot agree with the finding of the Single Judge that the defect in not issuing notice to the victim or their dependent and depriving them of the opportunity to be heard in the proceedings concerned (for grant of bail) can be cured by providing them a hearing in a proceeding that arose subsequently (for cancellation of bail). Compliance with the principles of natural justice must be observed at every stage under the mandate of the statute."

¶32

Similarly in the case of Victim ‘X’ (supra), it has been held that order granting bail can be quashed on the solitary ground of noncompliance of Section 15-A(3) of the SC/ST Act.

¶33

Upon applicability of aforesaid judgments in the present facts and circumstances, it is evident from the record that none of the victims or any dependent of victims including the appellant were impleaded as opposite parties in bail application and therefore naturally no notices were issued. The said aspects clearly indicate violation of mandatory provisions of Sections 15-A(3).

¶34

CRLA No. 274 of 2026

¶35

5

¶36

Another aspect being that despite the aforesaid aspects, the appellant put in appearance before the trial court and filed his objections to the bail application but the same has also been ignored by the trial court. In such circumstances, the bail order dated 18.11.2025 being against the specific and mandatory provisions of Section 15-A(3) of the SC/ST Act is hereby set aside.

¶37

Appeal therefore succeeds and is allowed .

¶38

Respondent no.2 to 6 shall surrender before court concerned by 11.05.2026.

¶39

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶40

April 20, 2026

¶41

Subodh/-

¶42

Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jeetu @ Ranjeet Rawat v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeetu @ Ranjeet Rawat v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Avadhesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Sonu @ Mo. Jakir vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 2 Others

Kaleem Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Kushagra @ Kushagra Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Sectt. Lko. and 2 Others

Vishal Azad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others

Mohammad Wali @ Babu and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another