The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed shock at the Delhi High Court’s decision to stay a reasoned bail order by a trial court in a money-laundering case for one year without any explanation, reported Live Law.
A bench led by Justice Abhay S Oka remarked: “When there is a reasoned order granting bail, can that order be casually stayed? Can it be merrily stayed for one year? What signals are we [the courts] sending?”
The comments came during the hearing of a petition filed by a man named Parvinder Singh Khurana, who has been accused of a crime under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
Khurana had been granted bail in the case last June by a trial court, reported Live Law. The Enforcement Directorate, however, challenged the move and asked the High Court to cancel Khurana’s bail.
As requested by the central law enforcement agency, the bail order was temporarily stayed. The High Court has since issued interim orders extending the validity of its stay order, effectively keeping Khurana in prison.
On Thursday, the Enforcement Directorate, represented by advocate Zoheb Hossain, told the bench that the trial court had not taken into account all the factors while passing Khurana’s regular bail order, according to Live Law.
Hossain also said that three judges of the Delhi High Court had recused themselves from hearing the Enforcement Directorate’s application seeking cancellation of Khurana’s bail. One of the judges recused themselves after reserving the order, Hossain added.
In response, the Supreme Court asked how the central agency could defend a “single-line order” of the High Court against a reasoned bail order by the trial court.
Hossain added that the Enforcement Directorate did not have any control over whether the High Court provided, or did not provide, a reason for its orders, according to Live Law.
“We are not blaming just you [Enforcement Directorate],” the court said in response. “We are blaming us also…This is shocking…Unless he [Khurana] is a terrorist, where is the reason to stay [his bail]?”
The Supreme Court reserved its judgment on Khurana’s plea and directed the Enforcement Directorate to submit a short note in two days, reported Live Law. The bench also reiterated its concerns about the violation of personal liberty in the case.
“For one year, for nothing, the person [Khurana] continues to languish in jail,” the court said, according to Live Law. “We are worried about the liberty aspect of it.”
Limited-time offer: Big stories, small price. Keep independent media alive. Become a Scroll member today!
Our journalism is for everyone. But you can get special privileges by buying an annual Scroll Membership. Sign up today!