Talat Sanvi v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
Leave granted.
1. The issue raised in this appeal is that whether interi m victim
compensation in proceedings for anticipatory bail can be imposed as a
condition for the same.
2. We do believe that the impugned order suffers from an infraction
of law as the question of interim victim compensation cannot form part
of the bail jurisprudence.
3. This issue already stands clarified by the pronouncements of
this Court inter alia in Sahab alam @ Guddu v. The State of
Jharkhand & Anr. - Criminal Appeal No.1318/2022, dated 24.08.2022
and Udho Thakur and Anr. ETC. v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.
- Criminal Appeal Nos.1703-1704 of 2022 dated 29.09.2022.
4. In Sahab Alam case (supra) we had dealt with the orders
passed by the learned Judge in various matters granting bail on condition
of depositing substantive sums of money without consideration of the
requirements of bail dependent on the nature of offences and thus, it
was observed that bail cannot per se be granted if a person can afford
to deposit the money or has the capacity to pay.
5. All the impugned orders were set aside and the matter w as
remitted back.
291
6. In Udho Thakur (supra) the aspect of use of expression “ victim
compensation ” was found to be inappropriate as pre-arrest bail
proceedings are not money recovery proceedings.
7. The matter in this case is one step further as it is not a payment
of money/deposit of money as a condition of grant of anticipatory bail
but the direction is to pay interim victim compensation in the proceedings
for anticipatory bail.
8. Looking back on the aspect of victim compensation we may
note that in 1960s the ‘victimology’ movement made way for monetary
compensations offered an incentive to governments by linking such
compensation to victims’ cooperation in the pursuit of criminal
prosecutions. Canada and several states within the United States began
providing victim compensation and thereby encouraged participation in
criminal prosecutions. The early 80s witnessed the pioneers of victimology
and victim justice taking predominant initiatives of reforming the criminal
justice system on behalf of the victims of crime. The UN Declaration on
Basic Principles of Justice for Victims and Abuse o f Power was
unanimously adopted by the General Assembly in 1985 (Groenhuijsen,
2014). The Declaration made way for specific rights and entitlements of
victims of crime, including the right to compensation.
9. Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides f or
order to pay compensation when a court imposes a sentence of fine or a
sentence (including a sentence of death) of which fine forms a part in
the circumstances enumerated therein. Sub-section ( 2) imposes a
limitation that when fine is imposed in a case which is subject to appeal
no such payment shall be made before the period allowed for presenting
the appeal has elapsed, or if an appeal is presented, before the decision
of the appeal. Under sub-section (3) it is by way of compens ation for
the person who has suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act f or
which the accused person has been so sentenced. Sub-sect ion (4) also
provides for the appellate court or the High Court or Court of Sessions
to direct payment of compensation when exercising its power of revisions.
10. We have set forth this to appreciate that victim compensation
is simultaneous with the final view taken in respect of the alleged offence,
i.e., whether it was so committed or not and, thus, there is no question of
any imposition pre-finality of the matter pre-trial.
TALAT SANVI v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]
11. In a recent judgment of this Court in Dharmesh v. State of
Gujarat 1it was opined that it was clear from the plain reading of Section
357 that such compensation can only arise after the conclusion of trial
albeit, of course, the same being a matter of discretion. The High Court’s
direction to the accused for deposit of compensation for the legal heirs
of the deceased (victim), as a condition for the bail cannot be sustained
and, thus, logically set aside.
12. The Court opined that the objective is clear that in c ases of
offences against body, compensation to the victim should be methodology
for redemption. Similarly, to prevent unnecessary h arassment,
compensation has been provided where meaningless criminal proceedings
had been started. Such a compensation can hardly be determined at the
stage of grant of bail.
13. Not being appreciative of such judicial misadventure, we have
no hesitation in quashing the condition imposed in the impugned order in
this behalf while maintaining the other aspects of the grant of anticipatory
bail.
14. The appeal is accordingly allowed leaving parties to bear their
own costs.
Devika Gujral Appeal allowed.
1 (2021) 7 SCC 198