SC sets aside Patna HC order directing Sahara chief Subrata Roy to appear before it

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday set aside the Patna High Court orders, including the one directing Sahara Group chief Subrata Roy to appear before it, which were passed while hearing the anticipatory bail plea of another person.

The apex court said the high court while entertaining the plea for grant of anticipatory bail filed by the applicant before it, went in to inquire into matters ”unrelated” to the facts relevant for deciding the application.

”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,” a bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar and J B Pardiwala said.

The top court set aside the February 11 and April 27 orders of the high court.

It had earlier stayed the order passed by the high court which had on February 11 directed to add Sahara Credit Cooperative Societies Limited and Roy as opposite parties to a bail petition pending before it and later, directed him to personally appear before it.

On April 27, the high court directed Roy to personally appear before it noting that Sahara Group and other companies, which have been taking deposits till about one month back, are directed to come up with a plan for the return of investment of the investors. The apex court observed that the application under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is specific to the issue of the concerned applicant applying for the grant of anticipatory bail in anticipation of his arrest in connection with the case registered against him.

Section 438 of the CrPC deals with the direction for grant of bail to a person apprehending arrest.

The bench said that in such proceedings, the inquiry must be limited to the facts relevant and applicable to the concerned applicant who has come before the court and no attempts should be made to inquire into matters pertaining to some third party, much less beyond the scope of the complaint or the FIR in question.

”The high court has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in that regard,” the bench observed. ”Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgement and order…,” it said.

The apex court said the state is free to take recourse to such remedy, as may be permissible in law.

The top court had earlier stayed the direction of the high court which had asked the Director-General of Police, Bihar, to produce Roy before it in connection with a case in which some companies of the Group were allegedly not returning money to the investors. The counsel appearing for Bihar had on Wednesday told the apex court that the high court had not made Roy an accused and had only asked him to submit a plan as to how he is going to return the money to investors.

The apex court had on May 13 issued notice on the plea filed by the Sahara chief against the high court orders.

During the hearing on May 13, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioner, had apprised the apex court that earlier on that day, the high court had passed an order directing the Bihar DGP to produce Roy before the court on May 16 at 10.30 AM.

Sibal had earlier told the apex court that the high court had passed these orders while hearing the anticipatory bail plea which has nothing to do with the petitioner.

In its April 27 order, the high court noted that while considering the anticipatory bail applications, the court has come across cases of cheating committed by Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs), and considering the same, various orders were passed in these cases earlier.

The high court noted that it was informed that the Bihar Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2002 was enacted to control such activities but the public at large has been cheated by NBFCs without any control and the government functionaries under the Act have not been able to give any relief to them.

It had also noted that a large number of complaints before the authorities under the 2002 Act for non-payment of maturity amount by different entities of Sahara Group registered as NBFCs, multi-purpose cooperative society, etc. have been received by the authorities but the Group has ”somehow evaded payment of maturity amount of the investors”.

Prior to that, on February 11, the high court had noted in its order that some interlocutory applications have been filed by some intervenors that their money is lying with Sahara Credit Cooperative Societies Limited and other companies of the Sahara Group and they have not been returning the amount to the investors.