SC strengthens legal protection in appeal cases

SC underscored that an acquitted accused stands on a higher pedestal than an accused facing trial, who is presumed to be innocent until he is proven guilty.

Reaffirming the fundamental principle that “bail is the rule, and jail is the exception,” the Supreme Court on Friday ruled that an individual acquitted by a trial court must be released on bail when a high court reviews the acquittal order.

SC underscored that an acquitted accused stands on a higher pedestal than an accused facing trial, who is presumed to be innocent until he is proven guilty. (ANI PHOTO)

A bench of justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan underscored that an acquitted accused stands on a higher pedestal than an accused facing trial, who is presumed to be innocent until he is proven guilty.

“It is well-settled in our jurisprudence that bail is the rule, and jail is the exception... When an accused faces trial, he is presumed to be innocent until he is proven guilty. In the case of an acquitted accused, the presumption of innocence is further strengthened because of the order of acquittal,” held the bench.

Laying down yet another safeguard against the deprivation of liberty, the top further held that a higher court cannot routinely stay an order of discharge, exonerating an accused due to a lack of prima facie evidence. “An order staying the order of discharge is a very drastic order which has the effect of curtailing or taking away the liberty granted to the accused,” emphasised the bench.

The decision strengthens legal protections against prolonged detention, ensuring that individuals who have already been exonerated do not suffer undue incarceration merely because an appellate court is reviewing their case.

The ruling came while setting aside two orders of the Delhi high court that stayed a discharge order in favor of Sudershan Singh Wazir and directed him to surrender. Wazir was arrested by Delhi Police in February 2023 in connection with the murder of former National Conference (NC) leader and former chairman of the Jammu and Kashmir Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Trilochan Singh Wazir, in September 2021. Wazir and two others were discharged by the trial court on October 20, 2023, while charges were framed against another accused, Harmeet Singh. However, the Delhi government challenged the discharge in the high court, which stayed the trial court’s decision in October 2023 without hearing the accused. Subsequently, the high court in November 2024 ordered Wazir to surrender.

Senior counsel Sidharth Luthra, representing Wazir in the top court, highlighted the perils of suspending a stay order, arguing that the grant of stay to the discharge order would virtually amount to allowing the revision application and allowing the trial without examining the merits or demerits of the impugned order.

Agreeing with Luthra’s contentions, the bench stressed that an order of discharge carries a greater legal significance than a mere grant of bail. “The order of discharge stands on a higher pedestal than the order granting bail. By grant of bail, the status of the accused does not cease to be that of an accused, but when the order of discharge is passed, he ceases to be an accused,” it stated.

The court further elaborated that an order staying discharge is a “very drastic order” that effectively strips the accused of the liberty granted by the discharge. The bench warned against its misuse, stating: “It is only in rare and exceptional cases where the order of discharge is ex-facie perverse that the revisional court can take the extreme step of staying that order. However, such an order should be passed only after giving an opportunity of being heard to the accused.”

The Supreme Court also examined the scope of Section 390 of the Criminal Procedure Code (replaced with Section 431 in the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita with effect from July 2024), which allows courts to order the arrest of an acquitted accused in certain circumstances. The court ruled that even if an appeal is filed against an acquittal, the general rule is to release the accused on bail rather than sending them to custody.

“It is well settled that an order of acquittal further strengthens the presumption of innocence of an accused. Therefore, as a normal rule, where an order under Section 390 of the CrPC is passed, the accused must be admitted to bail rather than committing him to prison,” held the bench. Only in extreme and rare cases can an acquitted accused be committed to prison under Section 390, the judgment added.