‘INQUIRY IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATIONS MUST BE LIMITED TO APPLICANT’S CASE, CAN’T BE DIRECTED AGAINST THIRD PARTIES’

The Supreme Court in the case Subrata Roy Sahara v. Pramod Kumar Saini And Or’s observed and stated that it is not open for High Courts to implead third parties in exercise of powers and the provision that deals with anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

In the petition filled assailing the order passed by 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.

The bench comprising of Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and the Justice J.B. Pardiwala observed and stated that the bench hold that it is not open to the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for adding third parties to the proceedings as the powers under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are invoked and are much less those parties who are neither necessary nor proper parties to the application under consideration.

It was clarified by the bench that the scope of inquiry of the High Court is quite narrow in an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Further, the application is 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 and any inquiry into matters pertaining to third parties, especially when it is beyond the scope of the complaint, is impermissible.

COURT’S OBSERVATIONS

The court observed that 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 applicant application and no other matters or to over-state facts unrelated to the applicant before the Court.

It was observed that 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 each and every aspect.

In the following terms, the bench was quick to dismiss his submissions:

The bench observed that if accepted, such a plea is fraught with the danger of allowing Sessions Court or 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.

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