Apex Court sets aside Patna HC order directing Sahara chief Subrata Roy to appear before it

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday set aside the Patna High Court orders, including the one directing Sahara Group chief Subrata Roy to appear before it, which were passed while hearing the anticipatory bail plea of another person.

The apex court said the high court while entertaining the plea for grant of anticipatory bail filed by the applicant before it, went in to inquire into matters “unrelated” to the facts relevant for deciding the application.

“In the present case, we have noticed that the high court kept the application for grant of anticipatory bail pending and issued directions, including to issue notice to third parties to appear before the court. That, in our opinion, is impermissible and cannot be countenanced,” a bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar and J B Pardiwala said.

The top court set aside the February 11 and April 27 orders of the high court.

It had earlier stayed the order passed by the high court which had on February 11 directed to add Sahara Credit Cooperative Societies Limited and Roy as opposite parties to a bail petition pending before it and later, directed him to personally appear before it.

On April 27, the high court directed Roy to personally appear before it noting that Sahara Group and other companies, which have been taking deposits till about one month back, are directed to come up with a plan for the return of investment of the investors.

The apex court observed that the application under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is specific to the issue of the concerned applicant applying for the grant of anticipatory bail in anticipation of his arrest in connection with the case registered against him.

Section 438 of the CrPC deals with the direction for grant of bail to a person apprehending arrest.

The bench said that in such proceedings, the inquiry must be limited to the facts relevant and applicable to the concerned applicant who has come before the court and no attempts should be made to inquire into matters pertaining to some third party, much less beyond the scope of the complaint or the FIR in question.

“The high court has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in that regard,” the bench observed.

“Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgement and order...,” it said.

The apex court said the state is free to take recourse to such remedy, as may be permissible in law.