Bail hearings are usually pictured as a contest between the State and the accused. The complainant sits outside that picture and sometimes does not even know a hearing is happening. In Ms G v. State (NCT of Delhi) (CRL.M.C. 4970 of 2026, decided on 28 September 2026), the Delhi High Court dealt with exactly this problem and reaffirmed the victim’s right to be heard at the bail stage. The ruling is short, but it shows how easily the victim’s right to be heard gets lost in practice.
Facts in Brief
The prosecutrix alleged that her neighbour, the accused, had physical relations with her several times since January 2022 on a false promise of marriage. After her statement was recorded on 29 June 2026, an FIR was registered under Section 376 IPC read with Section 69 BNS, and he was arrested. On 3 July 2026, the trial court granted him regular bail. She was neither served notice nor heard. She then moved the High Court under Section 483(3) BNSS to challenge the order.
The Legal Position
Section 439(1-A) CrPC, now Section 483(2) BNSS, says the informant, or a person she authorises, must be given an opportunity to be present and heard when bail is considered for the specified offences. Saurabh Banerjee, J. read this with Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra, (2022) 9 SCC 321, and Ms P v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2527. Together they establish that a victim can participate at every stage of criminal proceedings, including a regular bail hearing. I see the statute as the floor and Jagjeet Singh as the principle behind it. The victim’s right to be heard is part of a fair process, not a favour a court may extend.
Ms G v. State (NCT of Delhi)
The Court held that bail granted within three days, with no notice to the prosecutrix, could not be sustained. It set the order aside and remanded the application for fresh decision after hearing her, preferably within two weeks, on merits and uninfluenced by its observations. In effect, the denial of the victim’s right to be heard was enough, on its own, to undo the order.
Balancing Liberty and Participation
What I like most is the direction that the accused not be re-arrested until the trial court decides afresh. The order fell only because notice was not served, and that lapse was the court’s, not his. This shows the victim’s right to be heard and the accused’s liberty can coexist. Being heard is a right to put one’s case, not a veto. The victim’s right to be heard shapes the process, not the result, and the presumption of innocence is untouched.
The Gap That Remains
Section 483(2) BNSS covers specified offences, and Jagjeet Singh is wider, but a broad principle without a procedure is easy to ignore. A three-day turnaround suggests speed was prioritised. Speedy bail matters for liberty, yet hearing a victim takes little time. A simple practice would help: trial courts should record service of notice on the victim before taking up bail in sexual offence cases. Without that, the victim’s right to be heard stays on paper.
Conclusion
I think the Delhi High Court got the balance right. It corrected the procedural failure without punishing the accused for it and without turning the victim into a decision-maker. The victim’s right to be heard now rests on statute and Supreme Court authority. What remains is for trial courts to apply it every single time.
Source: SCC Times, “Delhi High Court: Prosecutrix must be heard before grant of regular bail” (5 October 2026).
