The Indian Supreme Court is going to not forget a totally important query of regulation; whether it's miles obligatory that the victim be heard previous to granting anticipatory bail to an accused. A very vital query of regulation, this has big repercussions for the justice gadget regarding the rights of the accused and the want for the presence and protection of the victim on the equal time.Anticipatory bail is one of the pre-arrest criminal remedies granted under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Such a treatment protects a person against arrest based on mere allegations and ensures liberty is not denied without being unjustly curtailed. But what has ensued of such debate is that it has not been specifically incorporated within the provisions of the CrPC to require the sufferer's announcement prior to the granting of bail, thereby excluding them from an important aspect of the trial process. Of late, the courts in India have encountered the problem of whether victims, in particular in cases of serious offenses like sexual violence or dowry murders, should be granted a right to raise their grievances during anticipatory bail hearings. Advocates for mandatory victim participation argue that with the exception of the sufferer may also result in a miscarriage of justice, as their perspective is regularly important in assessing the potential hazard posed by way of the accused if granted bail. On the opposing hand, defenders of outlawing victim participation point to how one of those pass would infringe upon the defendant's right to a true trial. In that aspect, they take hold on the principle of audi alteram partem that anticipatory bail hearings most often address the arrest apprehension in place of finding out whether they are guilty or not. The pivotal case of X vs. Y, 2021, Supreme Court has held that in certain situations, the views of sufferers should be considered, especially with regard to sexual offense cases. It was a contemporary step, but questions relating to the general application remained unanswerable. The modern deliberation of the Supreme Court is inspired by an attraction that challenges a high court decision to deliver anticipatory bail without an opportunity given to the victim. According to the petitioner, denying the victim such a forum is contrary to the tenets of natural justice and demeans the role of judiciary in safeguarding the rights of victims.