Leave granted.
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.
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
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.
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.”
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 attempt should be made to inquire into matters
pertaining to some third party much less beyond the scope
of the complaint/FIR in question.
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 application and not to
over-state facts or other matters unrelated to the
applicant before the Court.
In the present case, we have noticed that the High
Court kept the application for grant of anticipatory bail
pending and issued directions, including to issue notice
to third parties to appear before the Court. That, in our
opinion, is impermissible and cannot be countenanced.
The High Court has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction
in that regard.
Accordingly, all the 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, in law. The same cannot be
looked at or relied upon in some other proceedings
against the third parties.
Learned counsel for the State was at pains to
persuade us that since the High Court is taking a broader
view of the matter and wants to inquire into certain
aspects, it was open to the High Court to do so.
We do not agree with this submission at all.
Such a plea, if accepted, is fraught with the danger
of allowing Sessions Court/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.
We hold 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.
Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment and
order. However, we clarify that we are not expressing
any opinion either way on the correctness of the
observations made by the High Court in the impugned
judgment and order with regard to matters unrelated to
the applicant before the High Court. The State is free
to take recourse to such remedy as may be permissible in
law in regard to stated matters.
The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
New Delhi; July 14, 2022.
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 48774878/2022
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-02-2022 in CRLM No. 8063/2021 27-04-2022 in CRLM No. 8063/2021 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Patna)
SUBRATA ROY SAHARA Petitioner(s)
PRAMOD KUMAR SAINI & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 70435/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 70437/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No. 77764/2022 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT, IA No. 75344/2022 PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
Date : 14-07-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Gautam Awasthi, AOR
Mr. Ayush Choudhary, Adv.
Mr. Nizam Pasha, Adv.
Mr. Gautam Talukdar, Adv.
Mr. Devanshu Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Sameer Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Tripathi, Adv.
Mr. Ram Sajan Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR
Mr. Nitesh Bhandari, Adv.
Mr. Prabhat Kumar Rai, Adv.
Mr. Shourajeet Chakravarty, Adv.
Ms. Aprajita Bhardwaj, Adv.
Mr. Naveen Kumar, AOR
Mr. K. V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ramesh Babu M. R. , AOR
Ms. Manisha Singh, Adv.
Ms. Nisha Sharma, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
Leave granted.
The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed reportable
order.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
[Signed order is placed on the file]