Liberty is important but courts must not ignore victim suffering

Liberty is important but courts must not ignore victim suffering



Despite the importance of protecting individual liberty, the Supreme Court has noted that courts cannot "blind eye" the victims' suffering.

Thus, a March 2024 Patna High Court ruling that granted anticipatory bail to two accused in a murder case was overturned by Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta.

The top court voiced "sincere concern" about the high court's hurried handling of the case.

"While the scheme of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) provides concurrent jurisdiction to the high court and sessions court for entertaining applications for anticipatory bail, this court has time and again observed that high court should always encourage exhausting an alternative/concurrent remedy before directly interfering itself," the court stated.

According to the top court, the strategy first gives the harmed party a chance to protest the decision before the high court, so balancing the interests of all parties involved.

According to the bench, rather than applying its own judgement right away, this method also gives the high court a chance to evaluate the judicial viewpoint that the sessions court has adopted in concurrent jurisdiction.

It further stated that the high court had not documented any justification for granting anticipatory bail without first impleading the complainant as a party.

"Courtes must not ignore the victims' suffering, even while defending individual liberty is crucial.

A compromise must be made between safeguarding the accused's individual freedom and ensuring that the victims of the alleged offenders live in a fear free environment, the bench stated.

Although granting bail is a discretionary exercise, the September 17 judgement further said that courts must exercise caution in using this authority sparingly.

"In the present case, this discretion was totally uncalled for especially at the stage of anticipatory bail," it continued.

The bench stated that the seriousness of the charges made against the accused had not been appropriately assessed by the high court.