The Supreme Court in the case Kanchan Kumari vs State of Bihar observed and has reiterated that a peremptory direction affecting a third party cannot be issued in an anticipatory bail order.
The Apex Court, very recently in another case 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 the present case, the court 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, Bangalore to cancel the authorization/licence of agent granted to one post office agent named Kanchan Kumari. Also, the court directed that she should not be allowed to work as agent in Bihar or anywhere else. To this anticipatory application, Kanchan Kumari was not a party. It is no clear from the HC order, the reason which prompted the issuance of such direction.
It was contended by her before the Apex Court that such adverse orders ought not to have passed in an anticipatory bail proceeding in which she was not even a party and without issuing any notice. I was submitted by her that her livelihood has been adversely affected as the direction amounts to blacklisting her for her lifetime. Also, the state 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 weather a case for grant of anticipatory bail or not is made out by the applicant or not.
It was observed by the Court that such a peremptory direction and that too, without even issuing any notice to her was clearly unjustified.
Further, the bench observed while vacating the adverse direction that the court is 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 the court is not a mere observation. Thus, it is a peremptory direction affecting a third party. The adverse impact of the direction goes to the very livelihood of the appellant and also it has civil consequences for the appellant. Therefore, such a peremptory direction and that too, without even issuing any notice to the appellant was clearly unjustified.
