Supreme Court Limits Scope of Anticipatory Bail Hearings: Subrata Roy Sahara vs. Pramod Kumar Saini (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 14 July 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 627

Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J. and J.B. Pardiwala, J.

Can a High Court, while hearing an anticipatory bail application, inquire into matters beyond the scope of the case and concerning third parties? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying the boundaries of such proceedings. The Court emphasized that the inquiry must be limited to the facts relevant to the applicant seeking anticipatory bail and not extend to unrelated issues or third parties. This judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice J.B. Pardiwala.

Case Background

The case originated from a complaint case (Complaint Case No. 1761 of 2016) filed by one Naresh Kumar Das. In this case, Pramod Kumar Saini and other co-accused were named. Pramod Kumar Saini, one of the accused, filed an application for anticipatory bail before the High Court of Judicature at Patna. However, the High Court, while considering Saini’s application, went on to inquire into matters unrelated to the facts relevant for deciding the anticipatory bail application. The High Court also issued directions to third parties, including the appellant, Subrata Roy Sahara, who was not named as an accused in the original complaint, to appear before the Court.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) which deals with the grant of anticipatory bail. The Court emphasized that an application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is specifically for an individual who is apprehending arrest in connection with an offense registered against them. The inquiry in such proceedings must be limited to the facts relevant to the applicant who has approached the Court. The Court noted that it is not permissible to inquire into matters pertaining to third parties or beyond the scope of the complaint or FIR in question.

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states:

“Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest.—(1) Where any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section; and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail.”

Arguments

The appellant, Subrata Roy Sahara, argued that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by inquiring into matters unrelated to the anticipatory bail application of Pramod Kumar Saini and by issuing directions to third parties, including the appellant, who were not accused in the original complaint.

The State argued that the High Court was taking a broader view of the matter and wanted to inquire into certain aspects, which it was open to do. The State contended that the High Court’s actions were justified as it was trying to get to the root of the matter.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court, while considering an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., can inquire into matters beyond the scope of the case and concerning third parties not related to the applicant.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following:

• Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: The court considered the provision related to anticipatory bail, emphasizing that it is meant for persons apprehending arrest for a specific offense.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by inquiring into matters unrelated to the anticipatory bail application and by issuing directions to third parties who were not accused in the original complaint. The Court emphasized that the scope of inquiry under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is limited to the applicant and the specific offense for which they are seeking anticipatory bail. The Court set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court.

The Court observed 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.”

The Court further stated, “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.”

The Court clarified 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.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to maintain the procedural integrity of anticipatory bail proceedings. The Court emphasized that the scope of inquiry should be limited to the applicant and the specific offense they are accused of, and not be expanded to include unrelated issues or third parties. The court also weighed the fact that the High Court was acting outside the scope of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

Key Takeaways

• The scope of inquiry in anticipatory bail applications under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is limited to the applicant and the specific offense they are accused of.
• High Courts should not inquire into matters unrelated to the applicant or issue directions to third parties who are not accused in the original complaint.
• The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to the procedural framework of anticipatory bail proceedings.
• This ruling prevents the misuse of anticipatory bail proceedings to investigate matters beyond the scope of the case.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. The Court also directed that all 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.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the scope of inquiry in anticipatory bail applications under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is limited to the applicant and the specific offense they are accused of. This judgment clarifies that High Courts cannot expand the scope of such proceedings to include unrelated matters or third parties. This ruling reinforces the procedural integrity of anticipatory bail proceedings.

Conclusion

In summary, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Subrata Roy Sahara vs. Pramod Kumar Saini clarifies that the scope of inquiry in anticipatory bail proceedings is limited to the applicant and the specific offense for which they are seeking bail. The Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by inquiring into matters unrelated to the applicant and issuing directions to third parties. This ruling ensures that anticipatory bail proceedings are not misused to investigate matters beyond the scope of the case, thereby upholding the integrity of the legal process.