Today, On 12th July, A bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih emphasized that courts should not curtail an accused person’s liberty casually. They asserted that staying bail orders should occur only in rare and exceptional circumstances. The judges stressed the importance of upholding individual freedoms within the judicial process.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court emphasized on Friday that courts should avoid staying bail orders mechanically and without providing any reasons, stressing that denying bail should be reserved for rare and exceptional circumstances.
The bench, comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih, highlighted that the liberty of an accused cannot be restricted casually.
The bench observed,
“The courts should stay bail orders only in rare and exceptional cases, such as those involving terrorism, where the order is perverse, or legal provisions have been bypassed. Restricting liberty in this manner will be disastrous. Granting stays like this would be a disaster. What happens to Article 21 then?”
Supreme Court reserved its judgment on a plea by Parvinder Singh Khurana, an accused in a money laundering case. Khurana challenged the Delhi High Court‘s decision to temporarily stay a bail order granted by the trial court.
The apex court, during its session on Thursday, expressed concern over how courts should avoid staying bail orders without substantial reasons.
Justice Oka, highlighting the unexpected nature of the high court’s directive, remarked,
“Unless he is a terrorist, where is the reason to stay?”
Khurana had been granted bail on June 17 last year in a Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case, but the High Court stayed the bail order. Subsequently, on June 7, the Supreme Court stayed the High Court’s order and reinstated Khurana’s bail.
By critiquing the casual approach towards staying bail orders, the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of substantial justification before such actions. Justice Oka‘s comment emphasized the necessity of significant grounds for overriding a bail decision, implying that only in extreme cases, such as terrorism, should bail orders be stayed.
This observation by the Supreme Court reinforces the principle that the judicial system must exercise caution and ensure thorough consideration before intervening in bail decisions made by trial courts.
Furthermore, the Court directed that bail applications should be disposed of within a specified timeframe two weeks for regular bail applications and six weeks for anticipatory bail applications. This directive aims to prevent prolonged pre-trial detention and reduce the number of undertrial prisoners, who constitute a significant portion of the prison population.
Overall, the Supreme Court‘s guidelines aim to uphold constitutional liberties, prevent the misuse of the legal system for harassment, and ensure a fair and timely judicial process for bail applications