New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said roster notified by the Chief Justice is not an empty formality and all judges are bound by it, while setting aside a Bombay High Court order granting interim bail to an accused under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), without hearing the parties and recording reasons.
The top court said bail cannot be granted in a case only to strike a balance between the competing rights of the prosecution and the petitioner/ accused person. A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, in an order passed on February 9, said: "We have no manner of doubt that the impugned order to the extent to which bail was granted to the first respondent will 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", it added, while setting aside the order by which accused Bablu Sonkar was granted 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 bench noted.
The accused moved the High Court seeking quashing of the complaint against him and the concerned bench reserved the order on April 21, 2023. However, as the roster was changed, the bench on June 26, 2023 de-reserved the order and granted interim bail to the accused in its proceedings inside the chamber.
"We, therefore, direct that the judgment is de-reserved and this petition now shall be heard afresh along with the other connected matters and decided together in accordance with law. Meanwhile, in order to strike a balance between the competing rights of the prosecution and the petitioner/ accused person, we direct that the petitioner be released on interim bail….," said the High Court.
The Enforcement Directorate and others moved the top court challenging this order. The apex court said the moment the High Court bench directed that the case be released it should have been heard afresh, and the propriety required that the High Court bench should not have passed any order on merits, as the roster of the writ petition was with another bench on that day.
"What is shocking is 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," the bench said.
"Even if such a prayer would have been made on June 26, 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," it added.
The apex court said the appellants were not heard on the prayer for bail and the 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”, said the apex court. The top court has directed for a fresh hearing before the High Court’s roster bench unless the accused surrendered within two weeks.
