Leave granted.
The second respondent filed an application under
Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)
seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Pirbahore P.S.
Case No. 174 of 2021 registered for offences under Sections
406, 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. By the
impugned order, the High Court has found it fit to allow the
said application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The matter did
not end there and it is this which has led to the present
appeal. The following are the directions which has led the
appellant to approach this Court with a petition under
Article 136 of the Constitution of India:
the Post Office, she should not be allowed to work as
agent in Bihar or anywhere else.”
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and the learned counsel for the respondent-State.
Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that
the High Court has clearly erred in passing the said
direction, which alone is the subject matter of the
challenge before this Court. By virtue of the said
direction, the appellant, who was not a party before the
High Court, has been gravely prejudiced is the case of the
appellant. The High Court did not issue any show cause
before the said directions were issued. It is her case that
her livelihood has been adversely affected. It amounts to
blacklisting the appellant for her lifetime and that too,
without issuing any show cause. The appellant would impugn
the competence of the Court to pass such adverse orders
wherein the appellant is not even a party and without
issuing any notice and when the matter arose from an
application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory
bail by a person.
The appellant draws our attention to the view of this
Court in the decision reported in Sumit Mehta v. State of
N.C.T. of Delhi (2013) 15 SCC 570. In other words, the case
appears to be that the conditions must be appropriate,
apposite, reasonable and relevant to the scope of the lis
before the Court. The lis before the Court revolved around
the question as to whether the applicant had made out a case
for grant of anticipatory bail to him.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State very fairly
pointed out that as far as the legal position is concerned,
the 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.
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. We are, therefore, of
the view that the appellant must succeed. The appeal is
allowed to the extent that the impugned order shall stand
modified by vacating the direction which we have extracted
hereinabove. The appeal is allowed as above.
[ HRISHIKESH ROY ] New Delhi; July 25, 2022.
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 6436/2022
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27-04-2022 in CRLM No. 55125/2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna)
KANCHAN KUMARI Petitioner(s)
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. Respondent(s)
Date : 25-07-2022 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Somesh Chandra Jha, AOR
Mr. Parvez Alam, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR
Mr. Harsh Choudhary, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the reportable
signed order.
Pending application stands disposed of.
[Reportable signed order is placed on the file.]