In cases arising from complaints referred for investigation, the court must serve notice to the informant before deciding on an anticipatory bail application. Furthermore, imposing a condition that requires the accused to deposit funds in court for the complainant's benefit as a prerequisite for bail is legally improper.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. Though, notice has validly been served upon the opposite party no.2, yet no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in spite of repeated calls.

3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 (3) of the BNSS, 2023 with the prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 01.02.2025 passed in A.B.P. No.67 of 2025 arising out of Pakur Town P.S. Case No.327 of 2024 involving the offences punishable under Section 420 & 406 of the Indian Penal Code by which the learned Sessions Judge, Pakur granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount with the condition that the petitioner shall deposit the amount of Rs.21,000/- in the Nazarat, Civil Court, Pakur and it was further ordered that upon such deposit being made, the Court below is directed to issue notice to the complainant/informant and handed over the said amount to the complainant/informant after proper verification and identification.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR of the case was registered on the basis of the complaint of the petitioner being referred under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. which corresponds to Section 175(3) of the BNSS, 2023 to the police. It is next submitted that the petitioner was never granted opportunity of being heard and without the same; behind the back of the petitioner, the anticipatory bail application has been allowed. It is next submitted that granting of anticipatory bail with deposit of money has been deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is lastly submitted that thus the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner in this Cr.M.P., be allowed.

5. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P.

6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that since the FIR has been registered on the basis of the complaint being referred to police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. which corresponds to Section 175(3) of the BNSS, 2023, the petitioner being the complainant/informant ought to have been issued notice before granting anticipatory bail. It is also pertinent to refer to the order dated 25.08.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dinesh Kumar Sonthalia vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 10496 of 2025, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a similar matter order that notice be issued to the complainant on whose complaint the First Information Report has been registered the issue notice before granting anticipatory bail. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a catena of cases has deprecated granting of anticipatory bail or the condition of depositing the amount of money to be paid to the complainant/informant.

7. In view of the settled principle of law as discussed above, the impugned order dated 01.02.2025 passed in A.B.P. No.67 of 2025 arising out of Pakur Town P.S. Case No.327 of 2024 involving the offences punishable under Section 420 & 406 of the Indian Penal Code by which the learned Sessions Judge, Pakur granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner is quashed and set aside.

8. The learned Sessions Judge, Pakur is directed to pass fresh order in the said case in accordance with law, after issuing notice to the petitioner herein; who is the informant/complainant of the said case.

9. In the result, this Cr.M.P., is allowed to the aforesaid extent.