Can’t stay bail orders casually, must be done only in exceptional circumstances: SC
The bail order was stayed for a year before a vacation bench in the Supreme Court stepped in on June 7 to direct that the accused will be released forthwith
The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that bail orders cannot be stayed “casually” or “mechanically”, delivering a comprehensive judgment that establishes clear guidelines and deterrents against the casual staying of bail orders.
“Although courts may have power to grant stay on bail, it must be done only in exceptional circumstances,” declared a bench of justices AS Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, reading out the operative part of the judgment.
The court’s verdict came in a case in which a bail order for an accused in a money laundering case was stayed by the Delhi high court without rendering any reasons.
The bail order was stayed for a year before a vacation bench in the Supreme Court stepped in on June 7 to direct that the accused will be released forthwith.
The bench on Tuesday set aside the high court’s order of staying the bail.
During the hearing of the matter on July 12, the bench had said that the practice of casually staying bail orders is wrong, adding the top court will put an end to such a practice because of its “disastrous” implications for human liberty.
Also Read:SC seeks IIT Delhi’s help to resolve NEET-UG question controversy
After the Enforcement Directorate (ED) contended on Friday that it was an established practice among several courts since power to cancel bail would include power to stay such orders, the top court asserted its authority to end such practices.
“How can you say there’s anything in law or there’s some practice. If it’s a practice, it’s a wrong practice. Just because some orders are passed, it does not become justified. It can’t be a practice in matters involving the liberty of individuals. Orders granting bail contain reasons. How can it be stayed casually?” the court had asked advocate Zoheb Hossain, who appeared for ED in the matter.
The court also indicated it would lay down specific guidelines on when a bail order could be stayed.
“What we are going to say is that orders granting bail can be stayed only when there’s perversity and where special conditions are required or a person is a terrorist,” it stated while reserving the judgment in the matter.
In the present case, Parvinder Singh Khurana was granted bail by a Delhi court on June 17, 2023, in connection with a money laundering case. After ED filed an appeal, the Delhi high court on June 23 stayed the bail order but did not give any reason. Khurana then moved the Supreme Court against the stay order, prompting a vacation bench to direct his release on June 7.
On July 11, the court had condemned the practice of higher courts casually staying bail orders granted by trial courts, particularly when the accused is neither a terrorist nor considered a threat to society.
“What is this happening? A person is granted bail, you (Enforcement Directorate) approached the high court and merely on your asking, the order granting the bail remains stayed for one year. This is shocking,” it observed.
The bench underscored that such stays should not be granted merely at the behest of investigating agencies, especially when detailed reasons for granting bail have been provided by the trial courts.
It expressed its discontent with the casual way a detailed bail order was stayed by a “one-line order” from the high court.
The top court’s stance comes against the backdrop of a recent controversy involving Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, who is in judicial custody in connection with alleged illegalities in the framing of the 2011-22 excise policy.
On June 21, the Delhi high court stayed the bail granted to Kejriwal by a trial court in a money laundering case linked to the excise policy case.
The trial court cited a lack of direct evidence against Kejriwal and suggested potential bias in the ED’s approach.
Following ED’s appeal, the stay came in less than 24 hours after the order of bail by the trial court, but the high court’s initial stay order by a vacation bench did not provide any reasons, raising significant legal and ethical questions.
Kejriwal’s challenge to the suspension of his bail order is currently pending before the high court.