Inquiry In Anticipatory Bail Applications Must Be Limited To Applicant's Case, Can't Be Directed Against Third Parties : Supreme Court

In a plea assailing interim orders of the Patna High Court which had issued notice seeking appearance of Sahara Chief Subrata Roy in anticipatory bail proceedings of one Promod Kumar Saini and co-accused, a Bench comprising Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and J.B. Pardiwala observed -

"We hold that it is not open to the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to add third parties to the proceedings, as if it is invoking powers under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure much less those parties who are neither necessary nor proper parties to the application under consideration."

The Bench clarified that the scope of inquiry of the High Court is quite narrow in an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The application being limited to the concerned applicant and the offence registered against them, the Court's inquiry ought to be restricted to the facts relevant to the applicant before the Court. Any inquiry into matters pertaining to third parties, especially when it is beyond the scope of the complaint, is impermissible.

It further observed -

"Even if the application is entertained by the High Court, the High Court should exercise circumspection in dealing with the application only in respect of matters which are relevant to decide the application and not to over-state facts or other matters unrelated to the applicant before the Court.

The Counsel appearing for the State had vehemently defended the orders of the High Court arguing that it had taken a broader view of the matter and therefore, it was open to the High Court to inquire into certain aspects. The Bench was quick to dismiss his submission in the following terms -

"Such a plea, if accepted, is fraught with the danger of allowing Sessions Court/High Court to transcend beyond the scope of application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and the matters relevant to be decided by the Court."

The Supreme Court found fault with the High Court for summoning Subrata Roy and directing him to return the investments, while considering the bail application of another accused.

Case Name: Subrata Roy Sahara v. Pramod Kumar Saini And Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 601

Case No. and Date: SLP (Crl) No. 4877-4878 of 2022 | 14 July 2022

Corum: Justices AM Khanwilkar and JB Pardiwala

Headnotes

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 438 - anticipatory bail jurisdiction - cannot implead third party to proceedings - especially those parties who are neither necessary nor proper parties to the application under consideration - application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is limited to the cause of the concerned applicant, applying for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with offence already registered against him and apprehending his arrest in connection with such a case for extraneous reasons or otherwise - in such proceedings, the inquiry must be limited to the facts relevant and applicable to the concerned applicant who has come before the Court - no attempt should be made to inquire into matters pertaining to some third party much less beyond the scope of the complaint/FIR in question - even if the application is entertained by the High Court, the High Court should exercise circumspection in dealing with the application only in respect of matters which are relevant to decide the application and not to over-state facts or other matters unrelated to the applicant before the Court.

Click Here To Read/Download Order