Peremptory Directions Affecting Third Party Cannot Be Issued In Anticipatory Bail Orders, Reiterates Supreme Court

The Supreme Court reiterated that a peremptory direction affecting a third party cannot be issued in an anticipatory bail order.

Very recently, in another case, the Apex Court had held that it is not open for High Courts to implead third parties in exercise of powers under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In this case, while granting an anticipatory bail to an accused allegedly involved in a cheating case, the Patna High court directed the Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Bankipur, to cancel the licence/authorization of agent granted to one post office agent named Kanchan Kumari. The court also directed that she should not be allowed to work as agent in Bihar or anywhere else. Kanchan Kumari was not a party to this anticipatory bail application. The reason which prompted the issuance of such direction is not clear from the HC order.

Before the Apex Court, she contended that such adverse orders ought not to have passed in an anticipatory bail proceedings in which she was not even a party and without issuing any notice. She further submitted that her livelihood has been adversely affected as the direction amounts to blacklisting her for her lifetime. The State also submitted that a Court dealing with the application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. must confine itself to the issue before it viz., as to whether the applicant has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail or not.

The court observed that such a peremptory direction and that too, without even issuing any notice to her was clearly unjustified.

"We are convinced that the High Court has gone beyond what was needed for the disposal of the application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. What is impugned before us is not a mere observation. It is a peremptory direction affecting a third party. The adverse impact of the direction goes to the very livelihood of the appellant. It has also civil consequences for the appellant. Such a peremptory direction and that too, without even issuing any notice to the appellant was clearly unjustified.", the bench observed while vacating the adverse directions.

Case details

Kanchan Kumari vs State of Bihar | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 640 | CrA 1031 OF 2022 | 25 July 2022 | Justices KM Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy

Headnotes

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ; Section 138 - Anticipatory Bail - Adverse order against third party by High Court in an anticipatory bail proceedings - It is a peremptory direction affecting a third party. The adverse impact of the direction goes to the very livelihood of the appellant. It has also civil consequences for the appellant. Such a peremptory direction and that too, without even issuing any notice to the appellant was clearly unjustified.

Click here to Read/Download Order