Supreme Court quashes Bombay High Court order granting bail in PMLA case due to roster violation

Date of the Judgment: 9th February 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 107

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

Can a court grant bail to an accused person when the case is not assigned to its roster? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question of judicial procedure, emphasizing the importance of adhering to roster assignments. In this case, the Supreme Court overturned a Bombay High Court order that granted bail in a matter related to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), highlighting a breach of established judicial protocol.

Case Background

The first respondent, Bablu Sonkar, had filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court seeking to quash a complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The High Court did not grant any interim relief to the first respondent during the pendency of the writ petition. After the hearing, the judgment was reserved on 21st April 2023. The roster of the bench which heard the case was valid till 4th June 2023. From 5th June 2023, the roster was assigned to another bench till 20th August 2023.

On 26th June 2023, the writ petition was listed for further hearing. The High Court bench then passed an order in the chamber, stating that there were similar matters involving the same issue and its judgment will have an impact on other pending cases. The bench then de-reserved the judgment and directed that the petition be heard afresh along with other connected matters. The High Court also granted interim bail to the first respondent, directing his release on a personal bond and two solvent sureties, along with other conditions.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Bombay High Court had initially reserved judgment on the writ petition filed by the first respondent. Subsequently, the same bench de-reserved the judgment and ordered that the case be heard afresh, along with other connected matters. The High Court also granted interim bail to the first respondent, even though no such prayer was made on that day. The Enforcement Directorate appealed against this order of the High Court to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The primary law in question is the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The Supreme Court also emphasized the importance of adherence to the roster system established by the Chief Justice of the High Court, which is a matter of judicial propriety. The Supreme Court noted that the roster system ensures that cases are heard by the appropriate bench, and any deviation from this system can lead to procedural irregularities.

Arguments

Arguments by the Directorate of Enforcement (Appellants):

• The appellants contended that the Bombay High Court bench had no jurisdiction to hear the matter on 26th June 2023 since the roster had changed.
• The appellants argued that the High Court bench could not have passed any order on merits, as the roster of the writ petition was with another bench on that day.
• The appellants argued that the High Court granted bail without any prayer for bail by the first respondent on 26th June 2023.
• The appellants submitted that the High Court granted bail in an offence under the PMLA without recording any reasons.
• The appellants highlighted that the High Court granted bail only to “strike a balance,” which is not a valid ground for granting bail.

Arguments by the First Respondent (Bablu Sonkar):

• The first respondent’s arguments were not explicitly detailed in the judgment, as the Supreme Court focused on the procedural impropriety of the High Court’s order.
• The first respondent did not make any prayer for bail on 26th June 2023.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in this case. However, the core issue was whether the Bombay High Court could grant bail to the first respondent when the case was not assigned to its roster and after having de-reserved the judgment.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific case laws or legal provisions in this judgment. The decision was based on the procedural impropriety of the High Court’s order and the importance of adhering to the roster system established by the Chief Justice of the High Court.

Judgment

The Supreme Court quashed the Bombay High Court’s order granting bail to the first respondent. The Court emphasized that the roster system is not an empty formality and all judges are bound by it. The Court stated that the High Court bench had no jurisdiction to hear the matter on 26th June 2023, as the roster had changed. The Court also noted that the High Court had granted bail without any prayer for it and without recording any reasons, which is not permissible in a PMLA case.

The Supreme Court permitted the first respondent to move the roster bench for interim relief/grant of bail after surrendering within two weeks. The Court clarified that it was not setting aside the order granting bail on merits, and the High Court would consider the bail application on its merits.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to uphold judicial propriety and ensure adherence to established procedures. The Court emphasized that the roster system is not a mere formality but a crucial aspect of judicial administration. The Court was also concerned that the High Court had granted bail without any prayer for it and without recording any reasons, which is not permissible in a PMLA case.

The Supreme Court emphasized that “Roster notified by the Chief Justice is not an empty formality. All Judges are bound by the same.” The Court further noted that “No Bench can hear a case, unless as per the prevailing roster, the particular case is assigned to the Bench or that the case is specially assigned to the Bench by the Chief Justice.” The Court also stated that “bail was granted in an offence under the PMLA without recording any reasons. Bail cannot be granted in such a case only to “strike a balance”.”

Key Takeaways

• Adherence to the roster system is crucial for judicial propriety.
• Courts cannot grant bail in cases not assigned to their roster.
• Bail cannot be granted without any prayer for it.
• Bail in PMLA cases cannot be granted without recording specific reasons.
• Orders passed in violation of the roster system can be quashed.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the first respondent to surrender within two weeks and permitted him to move the roster bench for interim relief/grant of bail. The Court directed the High Court to consider the bail application on its merits.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court cannot grant bail in a case that is not assigned to its roster, especially after having reserved judgment and then de-reserving it. This judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to the roster system and ensures that cases are heard by the appropriate bench. There is no change in the previous positions of law, but this judgment clarifies the importance of adherence to judicial procedure.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to quash the Bombay High Court’s bail order underscores the critical importance of adhering to judicial procedures, particularly the roster system. The judgment serves as a reminder that judicial propriety is paramount, and any deviation from established protocols can have significant implications. The court’s emphasis on the need for reasoned orders, especially in cases involving serious offenses like money laundering, highlights the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the rule of law.