Criminal Procedure Code

Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra

(2022) 9 SCC 321

Facts

The case arose from the October 2021 Lakhimpur Kheri incident.
Vehicles allegedly drove into protesting farmers, resulting in several deaths and injuries.
Ashish Mishra was arrested and sought bail.
The Allahabad High Court granted bail.
Family members of the deceased and injured victims challenged the order before the Supreme Court.
They argued that:
they were not given a genuine opportunity to be heard;
relevant material was not adequately considered;
and the High Court focused excessively on selected aspects favourable to the accused.
The case required the Supreme Court to define the procedural position of victims in bail proceedings. ( )

A victim is not merely an informant or spectator.
Criminal procedure increasingly recognises substantive rights of:
participation;
information;
hearing;
appeal;
and compensation.
A victim has a right to be heard at every important stage affecting the prosecution, including bail.
A bail court must consider:
nature and gravity of the accusation;
prima facie material;
severity of possible punishment;
likelihood of absconding;
possibility of influencing witnesses;
danger of evidence tampering;
and broader interests of justice.
The court should avoid:
deciding guilt finally;
analysing evidence like a trial;
or relying on irrelevant technical observations.
The victim need not separately prove actual prejudice where the statutory or procedural right to hearing was denied.
BNSS continues victim participation through its definition, appellate and prosecutorial-assistance provisions.

The victims’ counsel had attempted to draw attention to:
witness statements;
the alleged sequence involving the vehicles;
the gravity of the deaths;
and possible influence of the accused.
They were not given a complete and meaningful opportunity.
The Supreme Court held that mere physical presence in the courtroom is not the same as a hearing.
A hearing requires a reasonable opportunity to:
make submissions;
point to material;
and respond to the bail request.
The High Court’s order also entered into factual observations that risked prejudging the prosecution while failing to address relevant bail concerns.
The Court clarified that victim participation does not transfer control of prosecution from the Public Prosecutor.
Nor does it create an automatic veto over bail.
The judge remains independent.
But the victim’s perspective may identify:
threats;
local influence;
relevant conduct;
or overlooked evidence.
Excluding that voice weakens the fairness of the process.

The Supreme Court set aside the bail order and remitted the application to the High Court for fresh consideration.
It directed that the victims be given a meaningful hearing.
The judgment confirms that victim participation in bail proceedings is an enforceable component of contemporary criminal procedure, not a matter of judicial courtesy. ( )