⚖️
Disclaimer The content published here is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

On July 23, 2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Parvinder Singh Khurana vs. Directorate of Enforcement (Crl App No. 3059-3062 of 2024), made important observations regarding the courts’ approach to granting a stay on bail. The High Courts and Sessions Courts generally have the power to cancel bail under Sub-section (3) of Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. When exercising such powers for bail cancellation, these courts sometimes pass interim orders staying bail, resulting in the accused being taken into custody by enforcement agencies. This judgment focuses on the interplay between bail provisions, the courts’ power to stay bail granted by lower courts, and the personal liberty of the individual.

This judgment can be relied upon by legal professionals when a stay is granted on bail orders. It serves as a precedent for how courts should approach staying bail granted to an accused. If any principles established in this ruling are not followed, litigants may cite this judgment as a precedent to seek redress from the courts.

Gist of the Case:

In this case, an investigation was initiated by the CBI regarding loans granted to Jay Polichem India Ltd and its associates. Subsequently, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) initiated its own case. Initially, the appellant was not named as an accused in the complaints filed before the Special Court. However, a subsequent arrest by the ED led the appellant to seek bail.

The appellant first sought default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC, which was denied by the Special Court. The appellant then applied for regular bail, which was granted by the Special Court, which found that the twin conditions for granting bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) were satisfied.

Aggrieved by the grant of bail, the ED filed an appeal before the High Court seeking cancellation of the bail. An ex-parte stay on the bail order was initially granted, and the proceedings were adjourned repeatedly without hearings. Notably, the initial stay order was extended through multiple adjournments.

In this situation, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court against the stay order granted by the High Court. The Supreme Court observed that the appellant was not given an opportunity to defend his case, and there were no sufficient reasons recorded for granting the stay.

The Supreme Court ultimately vacated the stay order passed by the High Court, granting relief to the appellant. While allowing the appeals, the Court made significant observations, imposing procedural obligations on the High Court when granting stays on bail orders.

Key Observations by the Supreme Court:

  1. A stay of bail orders should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances.
  2. The order must be well-reasoned.
  3. The court must establish a strong prima facie case for bail cancellation.
  4. The court must be convinced that the grounds for cancellation are likely to be proven.
  5. Ex-parte stays should be granted only in rare and exceptional circumstances.
  6. If an ex-parte stay is granted, the court must immediately hear the accused regarding the continuation of the stay.
  7. The court must record specific reasons for concluding that an ex-parte stay was warranted.
  8. When a stay is granted, courts should ensure prompt hearings on the main application for bail cancellation.
  9. The right to liberty cannot be curtailed for extended periods without proper hearings.
  10. Courts must be sensitive to the fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
  11. The liberty granted to an accused under a bail order should not be lightly interfered with.
  12. Instead of staying a bail order, courts can consider imposing additional conditions to ensure the accused does not abscond.

Situations Cited by the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court provided several illustrative situations where lower courts should exercise caution when granting stay orders:

  1. Cryptic Bail Orders: Bail granted by a very cryptic order without sufficient reasoning may justify a stay.
  2. Evidence Tampering: If there is material evidence showing that the accused is misusing their liberty, such as by threatening witnesses or tampering with evidence, a stay may be appropriate.
  3. Change in Circumstances: The filing of a supplementary chargesheet naming an accused (as happened in this case) could be seen as a change in circumstances justifying a fresh bail application.
  4. Prolonged Stays: The court criticized situations where ex-parte stays continued for nearly a year without the accused having a chance to be heard.

Relavant Provisions under CrPC:

Section 439(2) of CrPC-Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail.

……..

(2). A High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person who has been released on bail under this Chapter be arrested and commit him to custody.

—–

Related provision in BNSS, 2023 is S.483 (3).

Please do Subscribe to our Newsletters for Latest Posts.

Read our recent summaries.