Roster notified by Chief Justice is not an empty formality: SC permits Seva Vikas Co-operative Bank fraud case accused to move roster Bench by filing application for grant of bail
Justices Abhay S. Oka & Ujjal Bhuyan [09-02-2024]

Read Order: DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR v. BABLU SONKAR & ANR [SC-CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 774 OF 2024]

LE Correspondent

New Delhi, February 14, 2024: While permitting Seva Vikas Co-operative Bank fraud case accused Bablu Sonkar to move the roster Bench by filing an application for interim relief/grant of bail, the Supreme Court has observed that on 26.06.2023, when the Bench directed that the case was released and it should be heard afresh, the propriety required that the Bench should not have passed any order on merits, as the roster of the writ petition was with another Bench on that day.

The first respondent-writ petitioner had filed the writ petition in the Bombay High Court for quashing a complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). However, there was no interim relief granted pending the hearing of the petition.

The report submitted by the Registrar General of the Bombay High Court record that a roster Bench finally heard the writ petition and the judgment was reserved. The roster of the Bench which heard the case of criminal writ petitions for quashing was only upto 04.06.2023 and the same roster was entrusted to another Bench with effect from 05.06.2023 till 20.08.2023.

The writ petition filed by the first respondent was listed for further hearing. The impugned order was passed in the Chamber on that day. In paragraph ‘2’ of the impugned order, the Bench recorded that there were similar matters involving the same issue and its judgment will have impact on other cases which were pending.

At the outset, the Division Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka & Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed, “The moment the Bench directed that the case was released and it should be heard afresh, the propriety required that the Bench should not have passed any order on merits, as the roster of the writ petition was with another Bench on that day.”

The Bench was completely surprised with the fact that that after releasing the case, when admittedly there was no prayer made by the first respondent for grant of bail, the Bench granted bail for releasing the first respondent. Even during the pendency of writ petition, bail was not granted to the first respondent though a prayer for interim relief of grant of bail was made in the petition.

“Even if such a prayer would have been made on 26.06.2023, the Bench could not have heard the prayer for bail. Only the roster Bench could have heard the same. On that day, the advocate for the first respondent admittedly did apply for bail. Therefore, the appellants were not heard on the prayer for bail. Moreover, bail was granted in an offence under the PMLA without recording any reasons. Bail cannot be granted in such a case only to “strike a balance”, the Bench said.

The Bench was of the firm opinion that the impugned order to the extent to which bail was granted to the first respondent would have to be quashed and set aside. “These are all matters of propriety. Roster notified by the Chief Justice is not an empty formality. All Judges are bound by the same. On 26.06.2023, after releasing the case which was heard two months back, the Bench has proceeded to grant bail without anyone praying for grant of bail. No Bench can hear a case, unless as per the prevailing roster, the particular case is assigned to the Bench or that the case is specially assigned to the Bench by the Chief Justice. Therefore, we set aside that part of the impugned order by which bail was granted”, the Top Court held.

The Bench permitted the first respondent to move the roster Bench by filing an application for interim relief/grant of bail. “Such application shall be entertained by the High Court, only after the first respondent surrenders. We grant time of two weeks to the first respondent to surrender”, it stated while also clarifying that the Bench was not setting aside the order granting bail on merits. The said aspect shall be considered by the High Court while dealing with the application, which may be filed by the first respondent, the Apex Court added.