SUBRATA ROY SAHARA versus PRAMOD KUMAR SAINI & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 7 S.C.R. 122 · Decided: 14-07-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.B. PARDIWALA · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
122
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
SUBRATA ROY SAHARA
v.
PRAMOD KUMAR SAINI & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 955-956 of 2022)
JULY 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 the
concerned applicant, applying for grant of anticipatory bail in
connection with offence already registered against him and
apprehending his arrest in connection with such a case – 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 – 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 instant case, the order passed by the High Court
keeping the application for anticipatory bail pending and issuing
notice 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 Court
to transcend beyond the scope of application u/s. 438 – Thus, it
was not open to the High Court in exercise of powers u/s. 438 to
add third parties to the proceedings, who are neither necessary nor
proper parties to the application.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
Nos. 955-956 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Orders dated 11.02.2022 and 27.04.2022
of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Miscellaneous No.
8063 of 2021.
Kapil Sibal, Sr. Advs., Gautam Awasthi, Ayush Choudhary, Nizam
Pasha, Gautam Talukdar, Devanshu Yadav, Sameer Pandey, Rahul
Tripathi, Ram Sajan Yadav, Vijay Kumar, Advs. for the Appellant.
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 122
122
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
123
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. Nisha
Sharma, Advs. for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was passed:
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. 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.
3. 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.
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 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.
SUBRATA ROY SAHARA v. PRAMOD KUMAR SAINI & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
124
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
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.”
5. 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
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 attemp
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.