SARWAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Criminal Misc. No. 5721 of 1989 and main Criminal Misc. No. 3369-M of 1989.

(2.) THE question relates to necessity of issuing notice to the complainant while considering grant of anticipatory bail. Apparently, it is not obligatory to issue any notice even to the State while granting bail under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The mere fact that while considering the question of cancellation of bail such notice may be sent to the State, per se cannot be considered sufficient in all cases to allow the complainant, or for that matter the State to be heard before granting anticipatory bail. Such an analogy would indeed be a far-fetched one. No direct authority on this point has been cited before me. For the purpose of granting bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., it is not necessary to hear either the complainant or the first informant.

(3.) IT was next submitted on behalf of the complainant that when on consideration of the report made by the officer Incharge of a Police Station under sub-section (2)(i) of Section 173 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is not inclined to take cognizance of the offence and to drop the proceedings, or takes the view that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against some of the persons mentioned in the First Information Report, the Magistrate must give notice to the informant and provide him an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the report so that he can make his submissions to persuade the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence and issue process as observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police and another, AIR 1985 S.C. 1285.