TALAT SANVIversusSTATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.

                         [2023] 1 S.C.R. 289                          289


                         TALAT SANVI                                  A
                                v.
               STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.
                 (Criminal Appeal No. 205 of 2023)
                       JANUARY 24, 2023                               B
    [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND ABHAY S. OKA, JJ.]
       Victim compensation: Interim victim compensation in
proceedings for anticipatory bail cannot be imposed as a condition
for the same – Question of interim victim compensation cannot form
part of the bail jurisprudence – Bail – Code of Criminal Procedure,   C
1973 – s. 357.
      Allowing the appeal, the Court
       HELD: 1. Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
provides for order to pay compensation when a court imposes a
sentence of fine or a sentence (includinga sentence of death) of      D
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
                                                                      E
sub-section (3), it is by way of compensation for the person who
has suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act for which the
accused person has been so sentenced. Sub-section (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. [Para 9][291-E-G]                                 F
      2. 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. [Para 10][291-G-H]
      Sahab alam @ Guddu v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.             G
      Criminal Appeal No. 1318 of 2022, dated 24.08.2022;
      Udho Thakur and Anr. ETC. v. The State of Jharkhand
      & Anr. Criminal Appeal Nos.1703-1704 of 2022 dated
      29.09.2022; Dharmesh v. State of Gujarat (2021) 7 SCC
      198 – relied on.
                                                                      H
                               289
290            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 1 S.C.R.


A                          CASE LAW REFERENCE
      (2021) 7SCC 198                   relied on                     Para 11
            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal appeal
      no. 205 of 2023.
B           From the Judgment and Order dated 25.11.2021 of the High Court
      of Jharkhand at Ranchi in ABA No.6003 of 2020.
           Ganesh Khanna, Gaurav Kumar, Armoghan Mumtaz, Himanshu
      Bhushan, Advs. for the Appellant.
           Vishnu Sharma, Ms. Madhusmita Bora, Dipankar Singh, Mrs.
C     Anupama Sharma, Riju Raj Singh Jamwal, Bir Inder Singh Gurm, Manish
      Kumar, Ms. Anum Hussain, Advs. for the Respondents.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
D           Leave granted.
            1. The issue raised in this appeal is that whether interim 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
E     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
F     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
G     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 was
      remitted back.
H
       TALAT SANVI v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.                                291
               [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]

      6. In Udho Thakur (supra) the aspect of use of expression “victim        A
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     B
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                C
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
                                                                               D
Basic Principles of Justice for Victims and Abuse of 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 for
                                                                               E
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      F
of the appeal. Under sub-section (3) it is by way of compensation for
the person who has suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act for
which the accused person has been so sentenced. Sub-section (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.
                                                                               G
       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.
                                                                               H
292               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 1 S.C.R.


A             11. In a recent judgment of this Court in Dharmesh v. State of
      Gujarat1 it 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
B
      and, thus, logically set aside.
             12. The Court opined that the objective is clear that in cases of
      offences against body, compensation to the victim should be methodology
      for redemption. Similarly, to prevent unnecessary harassment,
      compensation has been provided where meaningless criminal proceedings
C
      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
D
      bail.
           14. The appeal is accordingly allowed leaving parties to bear their
      own costs.

      Devika Gujral                                                 Appeal allowed.
E




F




G




      1
H         (2021) 7 SCC 198