Cannot Avail Benefit Of Discharge Order: Delhi HC Directs Sudershan Singh Wazir To Surrender In Ex-MLC Trilochan Wazir’s Murder Case
The Delhi High Court has directed Sudershan Singh Wazir to surrender in Ex-MLC Trilochan Wazir’s murder case observing that he cannot avail the benefit of a prior discharge order by the trial court.
The Court allowed the application filed by the State under Section 390 of the Cr.P.C. The Court’s order followed the stay on the Trial Court’s discharge order, which had initially led to Wazir’s (the respondent) release. The Bench stated that the respondent, who had secured release following the discharge order, must return to custody, observing that the stay effectively paused the discharge order and reinstated his status as an accused.
A Single Bench of Justice Anish Dayal observed, “In the peculiar circumstances of this case, when the State was admittedly, not aware, that before the revision was listed before this Court, respondent No. 4 had already been given bail, the State could not be precluded from filing the Section 390 Cr.P.C. application subsequently. Firstly, the provision itself does not provide any limitation to such a plea being made;secondly, the essence of Section 390 Cr.P.C. power is the exercise of discretion by the High Court to commit an accused back to prison.”
Senior Advocates Sanjay Jain and Siddharth Aggrwal appeared for the petitioner, while Senior Advocates Vikas Pahwa and Mohit Mathur represented the respondents.
The case pertains to the murder of Trilochan Singh Wazir (deceased) in 2021. The deceased, a prominent figure from Jammu, was a former member of the Legislative Council and Chairman of the J&K Gurudwara Prabhandak Committee. His body was discovered in a Delhi flat after his brother reported him missing.
After an FIR was filed, the prosecution alleged that the murder was executed at the instance of the respondent who was also from Jammu. The accused allegedly rented the location of the incident, with CCTV and CDR records evidencing their presence.
The trial court discharged all the accused from all offences. However, the High Court stayed this discharge order upon initial hearing, but the respondent had already been released before the stay was issued. Subsequently, the State filed an application under Section 390 of the Cr.P.C. seeking the respondent’s return to judicial custody, arguing that the stay order effectively revoked his release.
The High Court referred to the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court’s decision in State of U.P. v. Poosu (1976) wherein it was held, “As soon as the High Court on perusing a petition of appeal against an order of acquittal, considers that there is sufficient ground for interfering and issuing process to the respondent, his status as an accused person and the proceedings against him, revive. The question of judging his guilt or innocence in respect of the charge against him, once more becomes sub judice.”
The Court explained that the stay granted “relegated back” the status of the respondent to that of an accused and maintained that all respondents should be similarly situated. The Court observed that the stay order would have been rendered ineffective if the respondent’s release persisted. The Bench emphasised that this order ensures the respondent cannot benefit from the discharge order during ongoing proceedings.
“However, once the appeals are filed, the powers of the Appellate Court get triggered in that either the Appellate Court decides to ensure the presence of the accused by having them submit bail bonds and sureties, or otherwise exercise the powers under Section 390 Cr.P.C,” the Bench remarked.
Consequently, the Court held, “Respondent is, therefore, obliged to be taken into custody and cannot avail the benefit of a discharge order, the operation of which, has been stayed by this Court. Not securing the custody of respondent, would amount to the stay order granted by this Court, being ineffective, of no consequence, and bereft of any teeth. This, the Court, cannot countenance. Thus, considering the stay order dated 21st October 2023 passed by this Court, respondent continuing to avail the benefits of the impugned discharge order, would be illegal, invalid, and infirm.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the application.
Cause Title: State (NCT of Delhi) v. Harpreet Singh Khalsa & Ors. (Neutral Citation:2024:DHC:8491)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocates Sanjay Jain and Siddharth Aggrwal; APP Aman Usman and Laksh Khanna; SPP Akhand Pratap Singh; Advocate Nishank Tripathi, Samridhi, Arjun Dewan and Harsh Yadav
Respondents: Senior Advocates Vikas Pahwa and Mohit Mathur; Advocate Ajay Mahia, Nancy Shamim, Garvil Singh, Rajiv Mohan, Sumit Mishra, Nishant Madan, Swapnil Krishna Tripathi and Nitika Pancholi