KANCHAN KUMARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The second respondent filed an application under Sec. 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 Ss. 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 Sec. 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:

(3.) 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 Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail by a person.