The Supreme Court of India dealt with the criminal appeals concerning the power of the High Court or Sessions Court to grant an interim stay on an order granting bail till the disposal of the application for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
Factual Background:
- The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered a case on December 1, 2020, against two companies and individuals for offences including conspiracy and forgery.
- On February 23, 2021, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) registered a case for money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
- The appellant, Parvinder Singh Khurana, was not initially named as an accused but was later arrested on January 20, 2023.
- The Special Court denied his first bail application on March 10, 2023. Subsequently, a supplementary complaint was filed naming him as an accused.
- The appellant filed two bail applications on April 29, 2023—one for default bail and the other for regular bail. The Special Court granted regular bail on June 17, 2023.
High Court Proceedings:
- The ED applied for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) CrPC on June 21, 2023. The Delhi High Court stayed the bail order on June 23, 2023, without examining the merits and continued the stay several times, leading to extended delays.
- The appellant’s application to vacate the stay was repeatedly adjourned, and the stay continued for over a year without a hearing on the merits.
Supreme Court Judgment:
- Interim Stay on Bail Orders: The power to grant an interim stay on bail orders should be exercised only in exceptional cases with a very strong prima facie case for cancellation of bail.
- Ex-Parte Orders: Ex-parte interim stay orders should be granted only in rare and exceptional cases with recorded reasons justifying such drastic action.
- Hearing on Merits: The court must immediately hear the accused on the continuation of the interim stay and not deprive the accused of liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution without proper justification.
- Case Facts: The ex-parte stay order was granted without considering the merits and continued for over a year, violating the appellant’s right to liberty. The Special Court’s detailed order granting bail was not appropriately contested on the grounds of misuse of liberty.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s stay orders, allowing the Special Court’s bail order to continue pending the final decision on the application for cancellation of bail. The findings were limited to the legality of the stay order, leaving all contentions on the merits open for the High Court to decide. The appeals were allowed.
Judges:
- Justice Abhay S. Oka
- Justice Augustine George Masih
Date of Judgment:
- July 23, 2024