Supreme Court Sets Aside Directions Passed By Patna HC Against Sahara Chief Subrata Roy In Bail Plea Of Another Party

Stating that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by summoning Roy and asking Sahara to submit a plan for returning money to its investors, a Bench comprising Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and J.B. Pardiwala observed -

"In the present case we have noticed that the High Court kept the application for grant of anticipatory bail pending and issued directions including issuing directions to third parties to appear before court. That in our opinion is impermissible and cannot be countenanced. The High Court has clearly exceeded jurisdiction in that regard. Accordingly, all the observations or notings made by the High Court in respect of matters unrelated to the case of the applicant before the HC must stand effaced from the record in law."

The Bench made it abundantly clear that when an application of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is before the Court, it should limit itself to the consideration of the same in connection with the offence already registered against the applicant without going into any further enquiry, especially with respect to third parties. It noted -

"In such proceedings, we have no manner of doubt that enquiry must be limited to facts relevant to the concerned application who has come before the court and no attempt to inquire into matters relating to the third party, much less beyond the scope of complaint/FIR in question."

Appearing before the Bench, on a previous occasion, the State Counsel had vehemently defended the impugned orders arguing that the High Court was looking at the bigger picture of economic offences in the State. The Bench categorically refused to accept such an argument as it would set a bad precedent permitting Courts' inquiry to transcend beyond the scope of the anticipatory bail applications.

Clarifying that the High Court could not have impleaded an unrelated third party (Roy) to the bail proceedings while exercising power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. the Bench set aside the impugned orders.

"It is not open for the High Court in exercise of powers under S. 438 to add third parties to the proceedings as if he is invoking power under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, much less those parties who are neither necessary nor proper parties. Accordingly we set aside the impugned judgment and order."

[Case Title: Subrata Roy Sahara v. Pramod Kumar Saini And Ors. SLP (Crl) No. 4877-78 of 2022]