“Normally bail orders should not be stayed, stay should be granted only in exceptional cases,” Supreme Court
Today (July 23, 2024), the Supreme Court (SC) was hearing a petition filed by an accused in a money laundering case (Parvinder Singh Khurana) against the order of the Delhi High Court (HC) that paused the bail granted to him by the trial court. The Supreme Court held that bail orders should not be normally stayed and set aside the order of the Delhi HC. It also said that High Courts should pause the bail orders only in exceptional cases. The order by the bench constituting Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih reads, “Though courts may have the power to grant stay on bail, it must be done only in exceptional circumstances. Normally bail orders should not be stayed, stay should be granted only in exceptional cases.”
The SC also expressed concern about the violation of liberty as it came to know that Mr. Khurana’s bail order had been paused for about a year. It said, “Please consider the repercussions. There is a bail granted, without bothering to look into the matter court stays it, and after one year you face a scenario that writ petition is dismissed. For one year, for nothing the person continues to languish in jail. We are worried about the liberty aspect of it.” The SC asked what message is being sent if an accused is denied relief for so long without strong evidence. Further, the top court highlighted that bail can be stayed only in rare cases such as when an accused is a terrorist, an anti-nationalist, involved in multiple cases under the NIA Act (National Investigation Agency Act), or if the bail is perverse.
During the proceedings, Advocate Zoheb Hossain who appeared for the Enforcement Directorate (ED) argued that the trial court failed to consider all the factors while delivering its decision. He further highlighted that several judges recused themselves from the case. Following this, Advocate Hossain argued that it was an established practice among various courts since the power to cancel bail would include the power to stay such orders. The top court asked the counsel appearing for the ED, “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?”
After hearing the matter, the SC bench set aside the order of the Delhi HC and stipulated that it would list certain guidelines that would help in distinguishing when a bail order could be stayed and when not.
