Click to read this news in Hindi- जमानत याचिका में पीड़ित/शिकायतकर्ता आवश्यक पक्ष नहीं: राज. उच्च न्यायालय ने रेफ़्रेन्स में कहा

A Division bench of the Rajasthan High Court comprising of Justice Arun Bhansali and Pankaj Bhandari has answered the reference saying that "Victim/Complainant is not a necessary party in the bail application filed under section 437, 438 and 439 CRPC".

The issue erupted after the Supreme Court of India passed a judgment in the case of Jagjeet Singh & Ors VERSUS Ashish Mishra @ Monu holding that the Victim has a right to be heard in all criminal proceedings saying:-

"He/She has a 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."

Thereafter, the single Bench of Justice Anil Upman referred this issue to a larger bench by way of reference.

"I, therefore, think fit and proper that this issue of necessarily impleadment of complainant/victim as party respondent in all the bail applications whether it be under Section 437, 438 or 439 Cr.P.C., should be decided by a Division Bench or by a Larger Bench. I therefore, direct the Registrar (Judicial), Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench to place the matter before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting an appropriate Bench to decide the following question:-

"Whether in all the bail applications under Sections 437, 438 or 439 Cr.P.C., the complainant/first informant/victim defined under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C. is necessary party and necessarily be impleaded as party respondent?"

Another bench of Rajasthan High Court made is mandatory to implead the Victim/complainant and issued a direction to pass a standing order. The bench noted the fact, "learned Public Prosecutor has drawn attention of this Court to Standing Order No.32/S.O./2023 dated 15.09.2023 issued by the Office of this Court whereby it was enjoined upon all the concerned that in future, in all matters, arising out of criminal act committed against victim as defined under Section 2(wa) of Cr.P.C. the victim be necessarily impleaded as party respondent."

एक FIR से सम्बंधित सभी जमानत याचिकाएं एक ही हाई कोर्ट जज सुनेगा: सुप्रीम कोर्ट

The Court while referring the issued to a larger bench noted, "Standing Order has been passed on the basis of observations made in the order dated 08.08.2023 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9490/2023 : Nitoo Singh @ Nitu Singh vs State of Rajasthan that victim is necessary party in all the bail matters arising out of criminal act committed against the victim. While making aforesaid observation, learned
Co-ordinate Bench, has relied upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment in Jagjeet Singh & Ors. Vs. Ashish Mishra @ Monu & Anr. reported in (2022) 9 SCC 321."

The reference was decided unopposed. The Court concluded, "None of the members of the Bar have supported the view taken by the learned Single Judge in Nitoo Singh @ Nitu Singh Versus State (supra) and have vehemently opposed the said order whereby direction has been given for impleading victim as a party respondent. The right of the victim as well as the accused person shall be rightly balanced and any inclination to either of the parties would not subserve the fundamental principle of fair trial, therefore, it shall be kept well within the minds of the Legislature as well as the judicial discipline that while granting any right to the victim, the right of the accused shall also be protected at the very first instance. We are of the clear view that neither the statute directs impleadment of victim as a party-respondent nor the judgment of Jagjeet Singh & Ors. Versus Ashish Mishra & Monu & Anr. (supra) directs impleadment of victim as a necessary party. Jagjeet Singh & Ors. case only provides that the victim has a vested right to be heard at every stage of proceedings. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the victim is not a necessary party and is not required to be impleaded as party respondent in bail applications under Sections 437, 438 or 439 of Cr.P.C. The reference is accordingly answered in negative."

Case Details:-

Criminal Reference No. 1/2023
Pooja Gurjar Vs. State of Rajasthan

Appearances:

ABHILASH SHARMA, ABHISHEK B. SHARMA, ADARSH SINGHAL, AJAY GADWAL, A K GUPTA, AKSHAY SHEKHAWAT, ANISH BADALA, ANOOP MEENA, ANSHUMAN SAXENA, ANURAG MATHUR, ANURAJ PAREEK, ASHWANI CHOBISA, AZIZ AHMED, BIRI SINGH SINSINWAR, B. R. CHOUDHARY, B. R. RANA, DHANANJAY SINGH GOKHAR, DHRUV ATREY, DUSHYANT SINGH NARUKA, D. V. THOLIYA, FAROOQ AHMED, GAURAV SHARMA, HARENDRA SINGH SINSINWAR, HARSH JOSHI, HEMANG SINGH SINSINWAR, HEMANT NAHTA, HIMANSHU THOLIYA, JITESH JAIN, KAPIL GUPTA, KAPIL PRAKASH MATHUR, MAHENDRA SAINI, MANISH GUPTA, MANISH KUMAR SHARMA, MOHD. ZUBER, MOHIT SHARMA, MRITUNJYA SHARMA, MUSKAN VERMA, NAGENDRA SHARMA, NAMAN MAHESHWARI, NAMAN YADAV, NIKHIL SHARMA,     NITIN JAIN, N N MEENA, N P MEENA, PALLAV JHALANI, PANKAJ AGARWAL, PANKAJ GUPTA, PARMESHWAR PILANIA, P. C. DEVANDA, PRASHANT DEORA, PRATUSH CHOUDHARY, RAJEEV SURANA, RAJESH SHARMA, RINESH GUPTA, RISHU JAIN, ROHITASH KR SAINI, SANDEEP PATHAK, SANJAY MEHLA, SANKALP SOGANI, SAURABH JAIN, SAURABH PRATAP SINGH, SAURABH YADAV, SAVITA NATHAWAL, SHUBHAM KHUNTETA, SHYAM BIHARI GAUTAM, S S HORA, SUDESH SAINI, SUNITA MEHLA, TAPISH SARASWAT, TIMAN SINGH, UMANG JAIN, VIMAL KUMAR JAIN, V R BAJWA, YOGENDRA SINGH, ATUL SHARMA PP, G. S. RATHORE GA CUM AAG, KIRTIVARDHAN SINGH RATHORE, PRASHANT SHARMA, TAYYAB ALI

The judgment is awaited.