Can't proceed like this in anticipatory bail case: Supreme Court sets aside Patna High Court orders against Subrata Roy

The Supreme Court on Thursday set aside proceedings initiated by the Patna High Court ordering the appearance of Sahara Chief Subrata Roy before it (Subrata Roy Sahara v. Pramod Kumar Saini and ors). .A Bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and JB Pardiwala made it clear that the High Court could not have initiated recovery proceedings for Sahara investors in an anticipatory bail plea."The High Court should exercise circumspection in deciding matters and not decide on unrelated matters. Here, the High Court kept anticipatory bail pending and issued notice to third parties. That is impermissible and cannot be countenanced. The High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction.".The Bench noted that the High Court was not at liberty to proceed in the way it did in a bail hearing."A 438 application is specific to the issue of concerned applicant applying for grant of bail. In such proceedings, we have no matter of doubt that enquiry must be limited and facts relevant to the applicant before court. No attempt should be made to enquire into matters of third party not mentioned in complaint...All observations made in this regard stands defaced from the record...Such transgression is beyond the scope of the application," the Bench explained.Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Roy, quipped,"This is music to our ears!".In May this year, the Supreme Court had stayed a Patna High Court order that had directed the Patna Police to produce Sahara Group Chairperson Subrata Roy before it on May 12. This order was passed by the same Bench hours after the High Court order, and proceedings were stayed until further orders.After Roy after allegedly failed to comply with the judgment directing his personal appearance, the High Court passed an order directing that he be arrested and produced before the Court. In this regard, Justice Sandeep Kumar, hearing over 2,000 related cases in the matter, had said that Roy is not above the law. The High Court dismissed requests of Roy's counsel that he be excused on account of his old age and ailments..During the last hearing before the Supreme Court, Sibal had submitted that the warrant was issued while hearing anticipatory bail petitions in cheating cases relating to recovery of dues payable by Sahara Group companies.Roy was not party to any of those anticipatory bail cases, despite which the same was converted to an omnibus case for recovery and he was made party, it was submitted."We were impleaded in Sahara matter of trying to get back money from investors," Sibal had argued."So not connected?," asked Justice Khanwilkar."Not at all," Roy's counsel had replied.The Court had then proceeded to grant interim protection to Roy. It stayed the judgment directing his personal appearance as well as the order directing the police to produce him before court..The Sahara Group and Roy are already embroiled in a legal battle with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) regarding repayment of money collected from investors.The top court had, in 2012, directed the Sahara Group to refund to investors over ₹24,000 crore it had collected from them, with 15 per cent interest.Sahara India Real Estate Corporation (SIRECL) and Sahara Housing Investment Corporation (SHICL) allegedly raised the money from 2.5 crore investors through Optionally Fully Convertible Debentures. After conducting a probe, SEBI ordered the two companies to stop raising funds and to refund the same to investors.Roy was arrested in January 2014, following a Supreme Court order. While he has been out on bail since, trials against him continue in courts across the country..[Follow our coverage of today's hearing]