Today, On 11th July, The Supreme Court questioned the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for opposing the restoration of bail after a one-year stay. This scrutiny comes in response to the ED’s stance against the reinstatement of bail for the accused.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court, On Thursday, scrutinized the Enforcement Directorate (ED) regarding its opposition to lifting a one-year stay on bail granted to an accused in a money laundering case.
A Bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih also questioned the Delhi High Court‘s decision to casually stay the bail, which had been granted through a reasoned trial court order.
Justice Oka expressed strong concerns, stating,
“What is happening? This is shocking. Please answer our question. Can bail be stayed as a matter of course? How can you appear to get a stay on bail for one year? Unless he is a terrorist, where is the reason to stay? Can you defend this? We will set it aside. How did the High Court casually stay the bail? Could the High Court have stayed it without a reasoned order? Answer us. What signals are we sending? We are blaming ourselves also.”
The Court expressed its concern regarding the broader issue of an individual’s right to liberty.
Justice Oka noted,
“Can the High Court act in this manner? Observe how it was conducted. We are particularly worried about the liberty aspect. An individual has to languish for a year in jail after bail was granted!”
The Supreme Court addressing appeals related to certain orders from the Delhi High Court concerning a money laundering case involving Parvinder Singh Khurana.
On June 17, 2023, a trial court in Delhi granted bail to Khurana. However, Justice Amit Mahajan of the Delhi High Court stayed this bail order within the same month following an appeal by the ED.
On March 18, 2024, Justice Mahajan removed the matter from his board.
On May 22, 2024, the case brought before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who scheduled a hearing for July 9.
Subsequently, Khurana sought relief from the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, On June 7, expressed shock over the prolonged pendency of the matter before the High Court. It stayed the High Court’s May 2022 order and reinstated the bail granted to Khurana.
During the hearing, the ED contended that the trial court had erroneously granted bail to Khurana.
Zoheb Hossain, counsel for the ED, asserted that the agency was not to blame for the delays in the High Court proceedings. He noted that comprehensive arguments had been completed at one point, but the judge had to recuse.
Hossain stated,
“The blame is not on us. We are helpless. Prosecution involves public time and money, and judges recuse. Expressing my helplessness. I cannot defend the interim order, but the main bail cancellation is pending,”
Initially, the Bench inclined to conclude arguments and reserve its verdict.
However, after the matter was reserved for orders, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju requested the Court to hear the ED further the next day.
The Bench acceded to this request, allowing the agency ten minutes for further submissions.
The Court recorded in its order,
“After the order was reserved, learned counsel made an extraordinary request to make more submissions. As a last resort, we grant 10 minutes, list tomorrow,”
These decisions reflect the court’s commitment to safeguarding constitutional rights and ensuring that the justice system remains fair and just.