The court established that the complainant does not have an automatic right to be heard in anticipatory bail proceedings unless the court finds it necessary.

ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner appearing through video conferencing and learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant, present-in-person. Perused the material available on record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that no opportunity was given to the complainant at the time of granting anticipatory bail by learned trial Court. He further stated that if an opportunity was granted to the complainant, the situation would have different; he can place factual situation before learned trial Court and in that eventuality, the interim order would not have been passed by learned trial Court. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following judgments as under:

1. Brij Nandan Jaiswal V/s Munna @ Munna Jaiswal and Anr. reported in (2009) 1 SCC 678.

2. J.K. International V/s State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. reported in AIR 2001 SC 1142.

3. Kunhiraman V/s State of Kerala reported in ILR 2005 (2) Kerala 139.

He further stated that on the ratio laid down in above cases, impugned order passed by learned trial Court in a bail be cancelled.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 stated that there is no statutory requirement that opportunity of hearing shall be given to the complainant in each and every case and without statutory requirement opportunity for hearing cannot be claimed as a matter of right, this aspect was considered by learned trial Court. This matter is related to offences punishable under Sections 420 and 426 of the Indian Penal Code and benefit of anticipatory bail was granted on different ground, that no custodial interrogation is required in this case and the anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a mechanical manner. Learned counsel further stated that it was not argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned order was not validly passed by the learned trial Court or the accused-petitioner misused the liberty given by learned trial Court by relying upon following two judgments :-

1. Myakala Dharmarajam & Ors. etc. V/s The State of Telangana & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No.1974-1975 of 2019f decided on 07.01.2003).

2. Dolat Ram & Ors. V/s State of Haryana reported in 1995 SCC (1) 349.

4. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that on Para 4 of page No.4 of the petition, it is clearly mentioned that after granting anticipatory bail the accused-respondent starting pursuing the complainant to withdraw the present case.

5. Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances, particularly the fact that anticipatory bail was granted by learned trial Court on the ground that no custodial interrogation is required in this case, so far as misuse of liberty by the petitioner is concerned, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant stated that no separate complaint has been filed in this regard; he also stated that charge-sheet has been filed after the interim order and as per his knowledge, witnesses have been called for.

6. I fully agree to the ratio decided by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Brij Nandan Jaiswal V/s Munna @ Munna Jaiswal and Anr. (supra) whereby it was held that, "the complainant can always question the order granting bail if the said order is not validly passed". In case of J.K. International (supra), this matter was pertinent for quashing of criminal proceeding, therefore, it was held that before passing any order, complainant be heard. In case of Kunhiraman (supra), the Apex Court also held that although there is no provision of giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the complainant but, if the Court finds it a fit case then the Court can hear the complainant before passing any order.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the accused relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in the case of Myakala Dharmarajam & Ors. etc. (supra) and Dolat Ram & Ors. (supra) where it was held that anticipatory ba