Supreme Court of India
KANCHAN KUMARI versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. on 25 July 2022
138
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 138
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
A
KANCHAN KUMARI
v.
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1031 of 2022)
B
JULY 25, 2022
[K. M JOSEPH AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.438 – Anticipatory Bailgranted to second respondent by High Court, however adversedirections passed against third party – In the instant case, secondCrespondent filed an application u/s.438 before High Court seekinganticipatory bail for offences u/ss.406, 420, 467 and 468 IPC –High Court while allowing the said application, directed theauthority to cancel the licence of agent granted to appellant andnot to allow to work as agent in Bihar or anywhere else –DJustification of such peremptory direction – Held: High Court wentbeyond what was needed for the disposal of the application u/s.438– It passed peremptory direction against the third party – Such aperemptory direction, without even issuing any notice to the appellantwas clearly unjustified – The adverse impact of the direction goesto the very livelihood of the appellant – Order of High CourtEmodified by vacating the direction.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.1031 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.04.2022 of the High CourtFof Judicature at Patna in Criminal Miscellaneous No.55125 of 2021.
Somesh Chandra Jha, Parvez Alam, Advs. for the Appellant.Manish Kumar, Harsh Choudhary, Advs. for the Respondents.The following Order of the Court was passed:
GO R D E R
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Leave granted.
2. The second respondent filed an application under Section 438of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seeking anticipatory bail inconnection with Pirbahore P.S. Case No. 174 of 2021 registered forH
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 saidapplication under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The matter did not end there andit is this which has led to the present appeal. The following are thedirections which has led the appellant to approach this Court with apetition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India:
“Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Bankipore is directed tocancel the licence/authorization of agent granted to KanchanKumari and for being an agent of the Post Office, she should notbe allowed to work as agent in Bihar or anywhere else.”
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and thelearned counsel for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the HighCourt has clearly erred in passing the said direction, which alone is thesubject matter of the challenge before this Court. By virtue of the saiddirection, the appellant, who was not a party before the High Court, hasbeen gravely prejudiced is the case of the appellant. The High Court didnot issue any show cause before the said directions were issued. It isher case that her livelihood has been adversely affected. It amounts toblacklisting the appellant for her lifetime and that too, without issuingany show cause. The appellant would impugn the competence of theCourt to pass such adverse orders wherein the appellant is not even aparty and without issuing any notice and when the matter arose from anapplication under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail by a person.
5. The appellant draws our attention to the view of this Court inthe 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 conditionsmust be appropriate, apposite, reasonable and relevant to the scope ofthe lis before the Court. The lis before the Court revolved around thequestion as to whether the applicant had made out a case for grant ofanticipatory bail to him.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State very fairly pointedout that as far as the legal position is concerned, the Court dealing withthe application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. must confine itself to the issuebefore it viz., as to whether the applicant has made out a case for grantof anticipatory bail or not.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A7. We are convinced that the High Court has gone beyond whatwas 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 peremptorydirection affecting a third party. The adverse impact of the directiongoes to the very livelihood of the appellant. It has also civil consequencesfor the appellant. Such a peremptory direction and that too, without evenBissuing any notice to the appellant was clearly unjustified. We are,therefore, of the view that the appellant must succeed. The appeal isallowed to the extent that the impugned order shall stand modified byvacating the direction which we have extracted hereinabove. The appealis allowed as above.
C
Devika Gujral(Assisted by : Shevali Monga, LCRA)
Appeal allowed.
D
E
F
G
H