<p>The Supreme Court on Thursday set aside the Patna High Court's order that summoned Sahara group chief Subrata Roy in an anticipatory bail case completely unrelated to him. </p>.<p>The top court said that the HC had exceeded its jurisdiction by asking him to come personally in the case to explain his plan to refund matured deposits to the small investors of his group companies.</p>.<p><strong>Also read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/supreme-court-favours-guidelines-on-preliminary-assessment-on-juvenile-for-trial-as-adult-for-heinous-offences-1126381.html" target="_blank">Supreme Court favours guidelines on preliminary assessment on juvenile for trial as adult for heinous offences</a></strong></p>.<p>A bench presided over by Justice A M Khanwilkar also expressed its displeasure, saying the judge had stepped out of bounds.</p>.<p> “This was a case of anticipatory bail of another person. This was also not a PIL. In my limited experience of 22 years as a judge, I can say this order has gone beyond its jurisdiction. (Summoning order), in our opinion, is impermissible and cannot be countenanced," Justice Khanwilkar observed, adding that the judge had no power to add unrelated third parties in a bail plea.</p>.<p><strong>Also read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/supreme-court-rejects-plea-for-probe-into-extra-judicial-killing-of-tribals-in-chhattisgarh-1126541.html" target="_blank">Supreme Court rejects plea for probe into 'extra-judicial' killing of tribals in Chhattisgarh</a></strong></p>.<p>The apex court had earlier stayed the HC’s orders of February 11 and April 27 against Roy and its firm Sahara Credit Cooperative Societies Ltd Roy or the Sahara Group as they had no nexus with the original criminal complaint and the Sahara chief was not a party to the cases, his counsel had argued, adding that despite that the HC had issued a summoning order in the “most arbitrary manner".</p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Thursday set aside the Patna High Court's order that summoned Sahara group chief Subrata Roy in an anticipatory bail case completely unrelated to him. </p>.<p>The top court said that the HC had exceeded its jurisdiction by asking him to come personally in the case to explain his plan to refund matured deposits to the small investors of his group companies.</p>.<p><strong>Also read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/supreme-court-favours-guidelines-on-preliminary-assessment-on-juvenile-for-trial-as-adult-for-heinous-offences-1126381.html" target="_blank">Supreme Court favours guidelines on preliminary assessment on juvenile for trial as adult for heinous offences</a></strong></p>.<p>A bench presided over by Justice A M Khanwilkar also expressed its displeasure, saying the judge had stepped out of bounds.</p>.<p> “This was a case of anticipatory bail of another person. This was also not a PIL. In my limited experience of 22 years as a judge, I can say this order has gone beyond its jurisdiction. (Summoning order), in our opinion, is impermissible and cannot be countenanced," Justice Khanwilkar observed, adding that the judge had no power to add unrelated third parties in a bail plea.</p>.<p><strong>Also read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/supreme-court-rejects-plea-for-probe-into-extra-judicial-killing-of-tribals-in-chhattisgarh-1126541.html" target="_blank">Supreme Court rejects plea for probe into 'extra-judicial' killing of tribals in Chhattisgarh</a></strong></p>.<p>The apex court had earlier stayed the HC’s orders of February 11 and April 27 against Roy and its firm Sahara Credit Cooperative Societies Ltd Roy or the Sahara Group as they had no nexus with the original criminal complaint and the Sahara chief was not a party to the cases, his counsel had argued, adding that despite that the HC had issued a summoning order in the “most arbitrary manner".</p>
