Subrata Roy Sahara vs Pramod Kumar Saini

REPORTABLE 2022 INSC 1308

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP(CRL)Nos.4877-4878 of 2022)

SUBRATA ROY SAHARA Appellant(s)

VERSUS

PRAMOD KUMAR SAINI & ORS. Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

These appeals take exception to the judgment and

orders dated 11.02.2022 and 27.04.2022 passed by the High

Court of Judicature at Patna in CRLM No. 8063/2021.

By these orders, the High Court while entertaining

the application for grant of anticipatory bail filed by

one Pramod Kumar Saini and other co-accused named in

Complaint Case No. 1761 of 2016 went on to inquire into

matters unrelated to the facts relevant for deciding the

anticipatory bail application.

2

This Court vide order dated 13.05.2022, whilst

issuing notice, observed thus: -

“Permission to file special leave petition(s) is granted.

It is urged that the private complaint filed by one Naresh Kumar Das, being Complaint Case No.1761/2016, is against accused persons named therein. The petitioner has not been named as an accused.

Further, the impugned order has been passed against the petitioner on an application for anticipatory bail filed by Pramod Kumar Saini, who has been named as accused no.4.

Issue notice, returnable on 19.05.2022. Dasti, in addition, is permitted.

Stay of operation of the impugned judgment and order qua the petitioner herein.

We are informed that pursuant to the impugned order, the High Court has issued further orders today, i.e. 13.05.2022, which has the effect of directing the concerned authority in Patna (police) to produce the petitioner before the Court.

In terms of this order, we stay the operation of the direction given by the High Court qua the petitioner till 2 the next date of hearing.

All concerned to act on this order forthwith until further hearing of this matter.”

Needless to observe that the 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 3

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.

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.

The High Court has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction

in that regard.

4

Accordingly, all the observations or notings made by

the High Court in respect of matters unrelated to the

case of the applicant before the High Court must stand

effaced from the record, in law. The same cannot be

looked at or relied upon in some other proceedings

against the third parties.

Learned counsel for the State was at pains to

persuade us that since the High Court is taking a broader

view of the matter and wants to inquire into certain

aspects, it was open to the High Court to do so.

We do not agree with this submission at all.

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.

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. 5

Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment and

order. However, we clarify that we are not expressing

any opinion either way on the correctness of the

observations made by the High Court in the impugned

judgment and order with regard to matters unrelated to

the applicant before the High Court. The State is free

to take recourse to such remedy as may be permissible in

law in regard to stated matters.

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

…...................J (A.M. KHANWILKAR)

…...................J (J.B. PARDIWALA)

New Delhi;

July 14, 2022.

6

ITEM NO.11 COURT NO.3 SECTION II-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 4877- 4878/2022

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-02-2022 in CRLM No. 8063/2021 27-04-2022 in CRLM No. 8063/2021 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Patna)

SUBRATA ROY SAHARA Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

PRAMOD KUMAR SAINI & ORS. Respondent(s)

(IA No. 70435/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 70437/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No. 77764/2022 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT, IA No. 75344/2022 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)

Date : 14-07-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Gautam Awasthi, AOR Mr. Ayush Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Nizam Pasha, Adv.

Mr. Gautam Talukdar, Adv. Mr. Devanshu Yadav, Adv. Mr. Sameer Pandey, Adv. Mr. Rahul Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Ram Sajan Yadav, Adv. Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR

Mr. Nitesh Bhandari, Adv. Mr. Prabhat Kumar Rai, Adv. Mr. Shourajeet Chakravarty, Adv. Ms. Aprajita Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Naveen Kumar, AOR

Mr. K. V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ramesh Babu M. R. , AOR Ms. Manisha Singh, Adv. Ms. Nisha Sharma, Adv.

7 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed reportable

order.

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(DEEPAK SINGH) (VIDYA NEGI) COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

[Signed order is placed on the file]