New Delhi: In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court on Tuesday (July 23) has held that bail orders should not be normally stayed, emphasising the importance of protecting individual liberty, Live Law reported.
The court set aside a Delhi high court order that had stayed a bail granted in a money laundering case, stressing that such stays should only occur in exceptional circumstances.
The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Agustine George Masih, pronounced the verdict in a petition filed by Parvinder Singh Khurana, an accused in a money laundering case.
Also read: Karnataka IT Employees’ Union to Hold Protests Against 14-Hour Workday Proposal
“Though court may have 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,” Justice Oka was quoted as saying by Live Law.
In the previous hearing on July 11, the court had expressed concern over the Delhi high court’s decision to stay the bail order without providing reasons.
Highlighting the potential violation of liberty, Justice Oka 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 case involved Khurana’s bail grant by a trial court, which was challenged by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED). The ED argued that the trial court had not considered all factors in its decision, but the Supreme Court questioned how a single-line order from the Delhi high court could stay a reasoned bail order.
On July 12, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had raised concerns about the accused absconding if released on bail. But, the court reiterated that bail can only be stayed in rare cases, such as when the accused is a terrorist or involved in multiple cases under the NIA Act.
