Notice to informant is mandatory before granting anticipatory bail in FIRs originating from referred complaints.

The petitioner is the original complainant/informant in a case involving Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, which was registered as Pakur Town P.S. Case No. 327 of 2024 after being referred to the police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 175(3) of the BNSS, 2023)

On February 1, 2025, the Sessions Judge, Pakur, granted anticipatory bail to the accused (Opposite Party No. 2) in A.B.P. No. 67 of 2025

The bail was granted on the condition that the accused deposit Rs. 21,000 in the Court’s Nazarat, to be handed over to the informant after verification

The petitioner filed the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 483(3) of the BNSS, 2023, seeking to quash the bail order on the grounds that he was not given an opportunity to be heard and that the monetary condition was legally unsustainable

1. Whether an informant is entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before the court grants anticipatory bail in a case initiated via a complaint referred under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

2. Whether the imposition of a condition to deposit money for payment to the informant while granting anticipatory bail is legally permissible

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 483(3) of the BNSS, 2023

It applied the procedural requirement that in FIRs registered via Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. (Section 175(3) BNSS), the informant must be issued notice before an anticipatory bail application is decided

The court relied on the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Kumar Sonthalia vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another (SLP (Crl.) No. 10496 of 2025), which emphasized the necessity of notifying the complainant in such proceedings

The court applied the settled principle that the condition of depositing money for the informant as a prerequisite for anticipatory bail is deprecated by the Supreme Court

The High Court found that the Sessions Judge had granted anticipatory bail "behind the back of the petitioner" without providing him a hearing

The Court reasoned that since the FIR was a direct result of the petitioner's private complaint, natural justice and procedural law necessitated that the informant be notified of the bail application

By citing the Dinesh Kumar Sonthalia case, the Court reinforced that this notice is a mandatory procedural safeguard

The Court observed that the Sessions Judge’s order directing a deposit of Rs. 21,000 for the informant was improper, noting that the Supreme Court has repeatedly deprecated the practice of making anticipatory bail contingent upon monetary deposits intended for the complainant

The Sessions Judge, Pakur, was directed to pass a fresh order in the matter in accordance with the law, specifically after issuing notice to the petitioner/informant

The petition was allowed to that extent