Summary
While hearing an anticipatory bail application by accused persons named in a private complaint, the Patna High Court inquired into matters unrelated to the applicants, kept the application pending, issued notices to third parties and directed the police to produce the appellant, who was not an accused in the complaint. The Supreme Court set the orders aside. An application under Section 438 CrPC is confined to the applicant's apprehension of arrest in the registered case, and the inquiry must be limited to facts relevant to that applicant. The High Court cannot add third parties as if exercising power under Order I Rule 10 CPC, and it exceeded its jurisdiction. All observations about matters unrelated to the applicant stand effaced from the record and cannot be relied on in other proceedings, though the State remains free to pursue lawful remedies on those matters.
Issues
- Whether, in an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC, the High Court may inquire into matters unrelated to the applicant, implead or summon third parties, and direct production of a person who is not an accused.
Provisions considered
- Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The proceeding is limited to the applicant's cause in the case registered against him; the court must confine itself to relevant facts and must not inquire into third parties or matters beyond the complaint or FIR. (¶¶ 5, 6, 7, 12, 13)
- Order I Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The High Court has no power in a Section 438 proceeding to add third parties as though invoking this provision, least of all parties who are neither necessary nor proper. (¶ 13)
Held
- An inquiry under Section 438 CrPC must be limited to facts relevant to the applicant; the court should exercise circumspection and not overstate facts or deal with matters unrelated to the applicant, and keeping the application pending while issuing notices to third parties is impermissible. (¶¶ 5, 6, 7, 8)
- The plea that the High Court may take a broader view and inquire into other aspects is rejected, as it would allow courts to transcend the scope of a Section 438 application; third parties cannot be added to such proceedings. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13)
- Observations on matters unrelated to the applicant stand effaced from the record in law and cannot be looked at or relied on in other proceedings against third parties, without the Court expressing any view on their correctness. (¶¶ 9, 14)
Result
Appeals disposed of. The High Court's judgment and orders of 11.02.2022 and 27.04.2022 set aside; no opinion expressed on the correctness of observations about unrelated matters, and the State left free to pursue permissible remedies.