Judges NV Ramana and Supreme Court of India, Supreme Court of India, Supreme Court of India, Supreme Court of India, Supreme Court of India, Supreme Court of India, Supreme Court of India, Supreme Court of India, Supreme Court of India, Supreme Court of India, Supreme Court of India. Said that there is, ‘To the extent of the Code of Criminal Procedure, you cannot request that you wait for the proceedings to begin in order to claim your right to participate in the proceedings at any stage after a criminal offense has occurred. Such “victims” have full participation from the stage of the investigation to the end of the appeal or retrial proceedings. “
The deceased’s family was denied an effective hearing opportunity at the Allahabad High Court.
Bench said the family in this case has the legal right to be heard at every stage.
Eight people were killed in Rakinpurkeri on October 3, last year, in violence when farmers protested the now abolished farming practices. Protesters prevented Uttar Pradesh’s Deputy Chief Minister of State, Keshahu Prasad Maurya, from attending events in the region.
During the protest, an SUV owned by Mishra, the son of Federal Minister Ajai Mishra Teni, is said to have killed and killed eight people, including a peasant protesting.
Mishra was arrested by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) after a 12-hour cross-examination on October 9, 2021, and was detained by police for three days.
In November 2021, the lower court dismissed Mishra’s bail request and urged Mishra to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Judge Rajiv Singh of the Allahabad High Court granted Mishra bail on February 10, and the driver of the vehicle that killed the protesting peasant may have increased the speed of the vehicle to save himself.
After the High Court of Prayagraj Mishra granted bail in this case, Uttar Pradesh did not appeal the bail order, and the deceased’s family requested the High Court to lift the bail.
The Supreme Court expressed disappointment with the way the High Court handled the case, noting that a request for retrial was made because the victim was unable to attend the proceedings.
“But this does not seem to have been taken into account by the Supreme Court in granting bail to the defendant,” the bank said.
This means that the victim was denied a fair and effective hearing at the time the bail was granted, the court said.