The bail granted to an accused should be stayed only in rare and exceptional situations, the Supreme Court observed on Tuesday, Live Law reported.
The bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih made the remarks while setting aside a Delhi High Court order staying the bail granted to Parvinder Singh Khurana, an accused in a money-laundering case.
In December 2020, the Central Bureau of Investigation filed a corruption case against two companies and two persons under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The Enforcement Directorate also registered a case in the same matter in February 2021 and arrested Khurana in January 2023.
On June 17, 2023, a special court granted him regular bail on the grounds that his application satisfied the twin conditions for the grant of bail in section 45(1)(ii) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The twin conditions for bail under the Act are that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of the offence and not likely to commit an offence while on bail.
However, on June 23, 2023 the bail was stayed by the High Court after the Enforcement Directorate challenged it.
On June 7, the Supreme Court stayed the High Court’s order and directed Khurana to be released on bail in accordance with the trial court’s decision.
In its judgement issued on Tuesday, the Supreme Court said that while deciding on an application invoking 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure or section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for cancellation of bail, “the power to grant an interim stay of operation of order to bail can be exercised only in exceptional cases when a very strong prima facie case of the existence of the grounds for cancellation of bail is made out”.
It said that the court issuing a stay on bail orders “must record brief reasons for coming to a conclusion that the case was an exceptional one and a strong prima facie case is made out”, Live Law reported.
The court said that as a rule, an ex parte stay of the bail order, which is ordered with respect to or in the interest of one side only, should not be granted. Such power should be used only in rare and exceptional cases where the situation demands drastic measures, and the court should immediately hear the accused’s prayer for continuation of the interim relief granted to them, it said.
Instead of staying bail orders, the court can issue additional conditions to prevent the accused from absconding, the bench said, according to Live Law. Without issuing a stay, the accused can still be taken into custody if the bail is eventually cancelled, it added.
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!