top of page
Question Bank
Question
Explain the significance of Section 15A(3) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in bail proceedings. What specific right does it grant to victims, and what is the consequence of non-compliance with this provision?
Solution
Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST Act mandates that victims must be heard before any bail application is considered in cases involving offences under this Act. It grants victims the right to participate in bail hearings, ensuring their perspectives and safety concerns are placed before the court. Non-compliance with this provision—such as failing to implead the victim as a party or not providing them notice—renders the bail order legally vulnerable. Courts may quash such orders as they violate the statutory safeguard designed to protect victim interests in sensitive cases involving caste-based atrocities.
Question
Under what exceptional circumstances can a superior court cancel bail already granted to an accused? Discuss key considerations from judicial precedents, excluding the accused’s post-bail misconduct?
Solution
Bail cancellation by a superior court is permissible in exceptional circumstances even without proof of the accused’s misconduct post-release. Key considerations include:
Illegal or perverse orders: If the bail order ignores material evidence, misapplies the law, or lacks reasoned justification.
Gravity of the offence: When allegations are grave/reprehensible (e.g., sexual exploitation by persons in authority) and shock judicial conscience.
Threat to fair trial: If the accused’s release poses an imminent danger of witness tampering, intimidation, or evidence destruction.
Societal impact: Where bail undermines public faith in the judiciary or normalizes serious crimes. Courts rely on precedents like Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar (2020) and P v. State of M.P. (2022), emphasizing that bail can be cancelled if initial orders disregard the nature of accusations, role of the accused, or trial integrity.
Question
How do courts balance the right to bail with the need to protect vulnerable victims in cases involving grave offences? Refer to special considerations under criminal law?
Solution
Courts balance bail rights against victim protection through special considerations:
Victim-centric laws: Statutes like the SC/ST Act prioritize victim hearing (Section 15A(3)) and account for power imbalances (e.g., exploitation by persons in authority).
Enhanced scrutiny: For grave offences (e.g., sexual violence, custodial exploitation), courts assess:
Risk of re-offence: Especially if the accused holds institutional authority over similar victims.
Witness vulnerability: Threats to victims/witnesses may justify denying bail to prevent trial frustration.
Judicial conscience: Allegations that shake judicial conscience (e.g., systemic abuse of vulnerable groups) may override standard bail parameters.
While women accused may receive special consideration, this is counterweighed by the gravity of charges and societal impact, ensuring protection mechanisms for victims are not compromised.
Question
Explain the scope and intent of Section 3(1)(w) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. How does it differ from general offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
Solution
Section 3(1)(w) of the SC/ST Act criminalizes intentional abuse of power by a public servant to inflict harm or disability upon a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Its core intent is to address caste-based exploitation perpetuated through official authority, which general IPC offences (e.g., Sections 341/323/376) may not adequately cover. Key distinctions include:
Aggravated liability: It targets state actors who weaponize their position for caste oppression.
Enhanced punishment: Penalties under the SC/ST Act are stricter than equivalent IPC offences.
Special intent requirement: The act must be committed intentionally to exploit the victim’s caste identity.
This provision fills critical gaps in penal law by recognizing institutional atrocities as unique crimes demanding heightened accountability.
Question
What role does the status of an accused as a "person in authority" play in bail considerations for offences involving vulnerable victims? Discuss relevant legal safeguards?
Solution
An accused’s status as a "person in authority" (e.g., institutional heads, public servants) critically impacts bail decisions in cases involving vulnerable victims (e.g., custodial abuse, trafficking). Courts consider:
Heightened risk: Authority enables witness intimidation, evidence tampering, or repetition of offences (e.g., exploiting new victims in similar roles).
Public trust violation: Such positions demand fiduciary responsibility; breaches justify bail denial under doctrines like "saviour turned predator".
Statutory safeguards: Laws like the SC/ST Act (Section 15A) and Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (Sections 3/4) impose stricter bail thresholds where authority is misused. Judicial precedents (Shabeen Ahmad, 2025) mandate evaluating the accused’s influence and potential to obstruct justice as paramount concerns.
bottom of page