Supreme Court of India
SUBRATA ROY SAHARA versus PRAMOD KUMAR SAINI & ORS. on 14 July 2022
122
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
SUBRATA ROY SAHARA
A
v.
PRAMOD KUMAR SAINI & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 955-956 of 2022)
BJULY 14, 2022
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND J. B. PARDIWALA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 438 – Anticipatory bail– Application under – Scope of – Held: Is limited to the cause of theconcerned applicant, applying for grant of anticipatory bail inCconnection with offence already registered against him andapprehending his arrest in connection with such a case – Inquirymust be limited to the facts relevant and applicable to the concernedapplicant who has come before the Court – No attempt should bemade to inquire into matters pertaining to some third party muchDless beyond the scope of the complaint/FIR – High Court shouldexercise circumspection in dealing with the application only in respectof matters which are relevant to decide the application and not toover-state facts or other matters unrelated to the applicant beforethe Court – In the instant case, the order passed by the High Courtkeeping the application for anticipatory bail pending and issuingEnotice to third parties to appear before the Court, is impermissible– High Court exceeded its jurisdiction – Such a plea, if accepted,is fraught with the danger of allowing Sessions Court/High Courtto transcend beyond the scope of application u/s. 438 – Thus, itwas not open to the High Court in exercise of powers u/s. 438 toFadd third parties to the proceedings, who are neither necessary norproper parties to the application.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal AppealNos. 955-956 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Orders dated 11.02.2022 and 27.04.2022Gof the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Miscellaneous No.8063 of 2021.
Kapil Sibal, Sr. Advs., Gautam Awasthi, Ayush Choudhary, NizamPasha, Gautam Talukdar, Devanshu Yadav, Sameer Pandey, RahulTripathi, Ram Sajan Yadav, Vijay Kumar, Advs. for the Appellant.H
K. V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv., Manish Kumar, Nitesh Bhandari,Prabhat Kumar Rai, Shourajeet Chakravarty, Ms. Aprajita Bhardwaj,Naveen Kumar, Ramesh Babu M. R., Ms. Manisha Singh, Ms. NishaSharma, Advs. for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was passed:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals take exception to the judgment and orders dated11.02.2022 and 27.04.2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature atPatna in CRLM No. 8063/2021.
3. By these orders, the High Court while entertaining the applicationfor grant of anticipatory bail filed by one Pramod Kumar Saini and otherco-accused named in Complaint Case No. 1761 of 2016 went on toinquire into matters unrelated to the facts relevant for deciding theanticipatory bail application.
4. 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 NareshKumar Das, being Complaint Case No.1761/2016, is againstaccused persons named therein. The petitioner has not been namedas an accused.
Further, the impugned order has been passed against thepetitioner on an application for anticipatory bail filed by PramodKumar 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 quathe petitioner herein.
We are informed that pursuant to the impugned order, theHigh Court has issued further orders today, i.e. 13.05.2022, whichhas the effect of directing the concerned authority in Patna (police)to produce the petitioner before the Court.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
AIn terms of this order, we stay the operation of the directiongiven by the High Court qua the petitioner till 2 the next date ofhearing.
All concerned to act on this order forthwith until furtherhearing of this matter.”
B5. Needless to observe that the application under Section 438 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure is limited to the cause of the concernedapplicant, applying for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with offencealready registered against him and apprehending his arrest in connectionwith such a case for extraneous reasons or otherwise. In such proceedings, the inquiry must be limited to the facts relevant andCapplicable to the concerned applicant who has come before the Court.No attempt should be made to inquire into matters pertaining to somethird party much less beyond the scope of the complaint/FIR in question.
6. Even if the application is entertained by the High Court, theHigh Court should exercise circumspection in dealing with the applicationDonly in respect of matters which are relevant to decide the applicationand not to over-state facts or other matters unrelated to the applicantbefore the Court.
7. In the present case, we have noticed that the High Court keptthe application for grant of anticipatory bail pending and issued directions,Eincluding to issue notice to third parties to appear before the Court. That,in our opinion, is impermissible and cannot be countenanced.
8. The High Court has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in thatregard.
9. Accordingly, all the observations or notings made by the HighFCourt in respect of matters unrelated to the case of the applicant beforethe High Court must stand effaced from the record, in law. The samecannot be looked at or relied upon in some other proceedings against thethird parties.
10. Learned counsel for the State was at pains to persuade usGthat since the High Court is taking a broader view of the matter andwants to inquire into certain aspects, it was open to the High Court to doso.
11. We do not agree with this submission at all.
12. Such a plea, if accepted, is fraught with the danger of allowingHSessions Court/High Court to transcend beyond the scope of application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and the matters relevant to be decided by theCourt.
13. We hold that it is not open to the High Court in exercise ofpowers 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 CivilProcedure much less those parties who are neither necessary nor properparties to the application under consideration.
14. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment and order.However, we clarify that we are not expressing any opinion either wayon the correctness of the observations made by the High Court in theimpugned judgment and order with regard to matters unrelated to theapplicant before the High Court. The State is free to take recourse tosuch remedy as may be permissible in law in regard to stated matters.
15. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
16. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Nidhi Jain
Appeals disposed of.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H