On Tuesday(23rd July), The Supreme Court overturned the Delhi High Court’s stay on bail in a money laundering case, highlighting that bail orders should generally not be suspended to protect individual liberty. Justices AS Oka and Augustine George Masih issued a 16-page judgment in response to Parvinder Singh Khurana’s petition.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: On Tuesday(23rd July), the Supreme Court overturned the Delhi High Court’s order that stayed the bail granted in a money laundering case. The apex court emphasized that bail orders should typically not be suspended, underscoring the significance of an individual’s right to liberty.
A bench comprising Justices AS Oka and Augustine George Masih delivered a 16-page judgment in response to a petition filed by Parvinder Singh Khurana, who is accused in a money laundering case.
The bench articulated-
“Although the court possesses the authority to stay bail orders, this power should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances. Typically, bail orders should remain in effect, with stays being granted only in rare instances.”
The judgment elaborated on the fundamental principle that underpins bail decisions, stating-
“The rationale is that once an undertrial is granted bail and their liberty is restored, it should not be easily revoked.”
Khurana, who was granted bail in June last year, found himself at the center of the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) efforts to have his bail revoked. Despite the high court’s temporary suspension of his bail and the continuation of this interim order over time, the Supreme Court found the delay and handling of the case troubling.
The apex court highlighted the procedural delays at the Delhi High Court, noting the repeated recusals of judges from the case. It remarked-
“While there may be valid reasons for the three judges to have recused themselves, an ex parte order staying the bail decision, made without considering the merits, should not remain in effect for a year without the appellant receiving a hearing on the continuation of the interim order.”
The bench strongly underscored the importance of the constitutional right to liberty, emphasizing-
“All courts must be mindful of the fundamental right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.”
The judgment further clarified the conditions under which bail orders could be stayed, setting a high threshold for such actions.
As a normal rule, the ex parte stay of the bail order should not be granted. The said power can be exercised only in rare and very exceptional cases where the situation demands the passing of such a drastic order. Where such a drastic ex parte order of stay is passed, it is the duty of the court to immediately hear the accused on the prayer for continuation of the interim relief.
ALSO READ: “Strange” Trend of Bail : SC Slammed Patna High Court Order to Grant Bail After 6 months
To ensure judicial accountability and transparency, the bench asserted-
“When granting an ex parte ad interim stay of a bail order, the court must document the reasons for concluding that the case is exceptionally rare and warrants such a drastic measure.”
