Operation Of Bail Order Can Be Stayed Only In Exceptional Cases: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that an order granting a stay to the operation of a bail order during the pendency of the application for cancellation of bail should be passed in exceptional cases.
The Court explained the power of the High Court or Sessions Court to grant an interim order of stay of operation of an order granting bail till the disposal of the application for cancellation of bail under subSection (2) of Section 439 of the CrPC or the corresponding provision under SubSection (3) of Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
A Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih observed, “While issuing notice on an application for cancellation of bail, without passing a drastic order of stay, if the facts so warrant, the High Court can, by way of an interim order, impose additional bail conditions on the accused, which will ensure that the accused does not flee. However, an order granting a stay to the operation of the order granting bail during the pendency of the application for cancellation of bail should be passed in very rare cases.”
AOR Madhusmita Bora appeared for the appellant, while SG Tushar Mehta represented the respondent.
The Delhi High Court in 2023 granted an ex-parte stay order on bail granted under Section 439 of the CrPC without hearing the accused who was arrested under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PMLA). The stay order was issued without recording specific reasons and was extended multiple times without proper hearings. The stay order was supposed to be reviewed on several occasions, but the case was frequently adjourned, prolonging the interim relief granted to the prosecution.
The Supreme Court explained the reason that an order granting a stay to the operation of the order granting bail during the pendency of the application for cancellation of bail should be passed in “very rare” cases. “The reason is that when an undertrial is ordered to be released on bail, his liberty is restored, which cannot be easily taken away for the asking. The undertrial is not a convict” the Bench noted.
The Bench explained that if the accused is released on bail before the application for stay is heard, the application/proceedings filed for cancellation of bail do not become infructuous. The interim relief of the stay of the order granting bail is not necessarily in the aid of final relief. “An order granting bail can be stayed by the Court only in exceptional cases when a very strong prima facie case of the existence of the grounds for cancellation of bail is made out,” the Bench added.
Consequently, the Bench observed, “An exparte stay of the order granting bail, as a standard rule, should not be granted…While considering the prayer for granting an exparte stay, the concerned Court must apply its mind and decide whether the case is very exceptional, warranting the exercise of drastic power to grant an exparte stay of the order granting bail.”
The Court set aside the High Court's stay order, reinstating the bail order dated issued by the Special Court to the accused.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals.
Cause Title: Parvinder Singh Khurana v. Directorate of Enforcement (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 546)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Madhusmita Bora; Advocates Harsh Sethi, Pawan Kishore Singh, Dipankar Singh, Anant Nigam and Raghav Luthra
Respondent: SG Tushar Mehta; Advocates Zoheb Hussain, Annam Venkatesh, Vivek Gurnani, Abhipriya and Vivek Gaurav; AOR Arvind Kumar Sharma
