E-Paper
Supreme Court slams Patna HC order on Subrata Roy Sahara’s arrest
The Supreme Court frowned upon the misadventure of a Patna high court judge who acted without jurisdiction in ordering the arrest of businessman Subrata Roy Sahara on May 13
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday frowned upon the misadventure of a Patna high court judge who acted without jurisdiction in ordering the arrest of businessman Subrata Roy Sahara on May 13 and starting recovery proceedings of matured deposits of Sahara group companies in a cheating case unrelated to the Sahara group where an accused was seeking anticipatory bail.
A bench headed by justice AM Khanwilkar said, “From my limited experience of 22 years as a judge I can say this order has gone beyond its jurisdiction. It was not a PIL which the high court was hearing. It was a Section 438 proceeding (under the Code of Criminal Procedure) for anticipatory bail. The high court was not to start recovery proceedings. It was to only consider grant of anticipatory bail.”
The bench, also comprising justice JB Pardiwala wondered how an order of arrest could be passed when Roy was not an accused in the anticipatory bail case heard by the high court. “How can the HC say that for deciding the anticipatory bail plea, the presence of this person (Roy) is necessary?” the bench asked, adding, “If this order was passed by any district judge, the high court would have come down very hard and even recommended the judicial officer to be sent for training at the Judicial Academy.”
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for Sahara informed the court that even the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has filed an appeal against the May 13 order as the HC judge had made RBI and Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI) party to the proceeding.
Directing the RBI appeal to come up with the present matter on Thursday, the bench said, “We will say that all these observations will stand effaced from the record and will ask the high court to decide only the anticipatory bail plea.”
The HC judge in question, justice Sandeep Kumar, was hearing a plea filed by Pramod Kumar Saini and two others who apprehended arrest in a cheating and forgery cases involving a group of companies that defrauded investors to the tune of over ₹3 crore. In the same proceedings, the judge entertained applications by several Sahara group investors who alleged that the company failed to make refund of their deposits which had matured long ago. The HC added Roy and Sahara group as party to its proceedings and summoned Roy to personally appear in court and indicate a plan for refunding the matured deposits of investors.
When Roy failed to appear despite being afforded multiple opportunities, the HC on May 13 directed the Director General of Police (DGP) to produce Roy in Court. The order said, “It seems that Subrata Roy Sahara has no respect for the orders of this court and he thinks that he is above this court.” The same day, the Supreme Court entertained Roy’s petition and stayed the proceedings before the high court.
The Bihar government supported the HC order and argued in the top court that HC, being a constitutional court, had powers similar to the Supreme Court to do complete justice. Advocate Manish Kumar appearing for the state argued that the HC was driven by the apathy of poor, innocent investors who were deprived of their hard-earned money as Sahara claimed it had no money to refund. He requested the court that in passing the final order on Thursday, a window should be kept open for the state to proceed in accordance with law against Roy and Sahara group in the event any complaint is received against them in connection with the scheme in question.
The bench assured the state saying, “We do not say that the high court does not have powers to pass such orders. Let it be done when a proper case comes for exercising jurisdiction, but not while deciding an anticipatory bail plea. Even if something is to be taken up suo moto, the matter would have gone to the Chief Justice of the Patna high court to assign the case to a bench.”
