The Supreme Court Today (Jan 28) criticized a Delhi High Court order that stayed the discharge of a murder accused, Sudershan Singh Wazir, without hearing him. Questioning the impact on justice, the Bench highlighted the undue hardship faced by the accused, remarking, “Even complete justice was done to Ajmal Kasab.” It also raised concerns over the legal delays and potential rights violations caused by such interim orders. The case will be further heard next week.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed concern about a 2023 Delhi High Court order that stayed the discharge of a murder accused without hearing his side of the story. The Court questioned how this decision affects the legal process and the rights of the accused.
A Bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan remarked:
“Our legal system is such that even complete justice was done to Ajmal Kasab. In this case, an ex parte stay has been granted.”
This statement came during the hearing of a plea filed by Sudershan Singh Wazir, the former President of the Jammu and Kashmir State Gurdwara Parbandhak Board. Wazir challenged the Delhi High Court’s decision to stay his discharge in a murder case.
Wazir was arrested in February 2023 in connection with the murder of former National Conference leader Trilochan Singh Wazir, who was killed in September 2021. On October 20, 2023, the trial court discharged Wazir and two others, citing insufficient evidence to frame charges. However, the Delhi Police approached the High Court the very next day. On November 4, 2023, the High Court stayed the discharge order, which effectively reversed Wazir’s release.
During the Supreme Court hearing, the Bench criticized the High Court’s approach, noting that the stay allowed the trial against Wazir to proceed, even though his discharge had not been formally set aside. This raised concerns about the difficulties faced by the accused.
The Bench also pointed out how Wazir might face a long legal struggle, especially with bail applications, which often lead to uncertainties and delays.
They remarked:
“He will go to the session court, which will not grant bail. The High Court will not grant bail either. Then he will have to come to the Supreme Court. Is this how our legal system is supposed to work?”
The Bench questioned why Wazir should surrender when there was still a chance that the discharge order could be upheld later.
They asked:
“He surrenders after a stay on discharge, and later, if the discharge is upheld and he is released again, will the State pay some compensation to him?”
The Court highlighted that interim relief, like staying a discharge order, should not lead to unnecessary suffering or violate the rights of the accused. It stressed the importance of fairness and justice in such situations.
The case is scheduled to be heard again next week, where the Court will consider the prosecution’s submissions.
CASE TITLE:
Sudarshan Singh Wazir v. State (NCT of Delhi).
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on CJI Sanjeev Khanna
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
