New Delhi, July 15 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed displeasure with the interim orders passed by the Patna High Court in connection with Sahara India Group Head, Subrata Roy, in relation to an anticipatory bail application of a third person.
A bench of Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and J.B. Pardiwala observed that the high court, in an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC, had exceeded its jurisdiction. It noted that the high court passed orders directing the Sahara Group to come up with a plan for the return of the investment of the investors before the next date of hearing, and also sought Roy’s presence before it.
On May 13, the top court stayed in the high court’s direction. It had also stayed a February 11 order by the high court directing to add Sahara Credit Cooperative Societies Ltd and Roy as opposite parties to a bail petition pending before it and later, directed him to personally appear before it. The high court on April 27 had directed Roy to personally appear before it. Roy moved the top court against the high court orders. Appearing for Roy, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, along with advocate Nizam Pasha, said that even the RBI has assailed the high court order.
The top court noted that the high court issued the direction with respect to the return of investment, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 438 CrPC and made it clear it has not expressed any opinion that the high court cannot pass such an order, but this definitely, cannot be done while exercising power under Section 438 CrPC in an application for anticipatory bail. “Let the high court exercise other jurisdiction. We have no problem. Not Section 438…,”
said the bench.
Counsel representing the respondent submitted that the high court had passed such sweeping orders in all economic offense cases and Roy’s matter is no exception. The bench said this is absolutely a wrong trend on the application of bail, the court started inquiring about issues not related to bail and emphasized that Section 438 has limited power.
The bench further remarked that if a sessions court were to pass such an order, then the high court would have come down heavily on it. Justice Pardiwala said in an application for anticipatory bail, the high court should not have emphasized Roy’s presence. The top court said the high court did not hear public interest litigation and in a bail matter, the court either grants bail or does not.
