State Is An Unnecessary Party To Anticipatory Bail Applications: Manipur HC
State is an Unnecessary Party to Anticipatory Bail Applications: Manipur High Court
Context:
Anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is a remedy available to a person who apprehends arrest in a non-bailable offence. The procedure involves the accused approaching the court to seek pre-arrest bail.
In many courts, the State (typically represented by the Public Prosecutor or police) is cited as a party in such applications. However, the Manipur High Court clarified that the State is an unnecessary party in anticipatory bail petitions.
Legal Reasoning:
Nature of Anticipatory Bail Application:
It is a petition moved by the accused seeking protection from arrest.
The order is passed in exercise of the court’s inherent jurisdiction and powers to grant protection.
No Adversarial Contest with the State Required:
Anticipatory bail is not a proceeding between two parties; it is a protective order.
The State’s presence or response is not essential to consider the accused’s apprehension and grant bail.
Statutory Silence on Party Requirement:
The CrPC does not mandate the State’s presence as a party in anticipatory bail applications.
The prosecutor’s submission may be heard if filed, but non-filing or absence does not affect the hearing.
Avoidance of Delay and Formalism:
Inclusion of the State often causes unnecessary procedural delay.
Courts should focus on merits and facts, not procedural technicalities.
Manipur High Court’s Stand:
In its rulings, the Manipur High Court observed:
The State is not an essential or necessary party to anticipatory bail petitions.
The court can hear and decide anticipatory bail petitions without serving or citing the State.
Such a practice streamlines judicial proceedings and prevents undue delays.
Relevant Case Laws:
1. Himanshu Sharma v. State of U.P., (2021) SCC OnLine All 4941
Allahabad High Court held that the State is not a necessary party in anticipatory bail applications.
Emphasized that the application is a petition for protection, not an adversarial proceeding.
2. Ratan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1978 Raj 119
Rajasthan High Court observed that prosecution or State’s presence is not mandatory for anticipatory bail orders.
3. Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40
Supreme Court acknowledged the nature of anticipatory bail as a protective order, not a suit or adversarial proceeding.
4. K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala, AIR 1969 SC 129
The Court noted that no notice to the State is mandated for anticipatory bail applications.
5. State of U.P. v. Rajesh Gautam, AIR 2003 SC 3050
SC emphasized procedural efficiency and cautioned against unnecessary formalities delaying justice.
Practical Implications:
| Aspect | Position |
|---|---|
| Party to Anticipatory Bail Petition | Accused (Applicant) |
| Is State a necessary party? | No |
| Role of Public Prosecutor | Can assist but not mandatory |
| Effect of non-appearance of State | Does not affect hearing or disposal |
| Court’s Jurisdiction | Independent and discretionary in granting bail |
Conclusion:
The Manipur High Court’s ruling clarifies that the State is an unnecessary party in anticipatory bail applications, aiming to simplify and expedite the process. Courts may proceed to hear and decide anticipatory bail petitions even in the absence of the State or prosecution, focusing solely on the merits and facts of the case.
This approach prevents procedural delays and ensures speedy justice and protection of personal liberty.
RELATED Blog
0 comments