Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered appeals against orders of the Delhi High Court that had stayed the operation of a bail order granted by the Special Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) pending disposal of an application for cancellation of bail. The appellant was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in a money laundering case. The Special Court granted regular bail on 17 June 2023 after finding that the appellant satisfied the twin conditions under Section 45(1)(ii) of the PMLA. The respondent filed an application for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) CrPC before the High Court. On 23 June 2023, a Vacation Judge passed an ex parte order staying the bail order without recording reasons. The stay continued for over a year due to multiple adjournments and recusals of judges. The appellant approached the Supreme Court challenging the stay order. The Supreme Court held that while the High Court has the power to grant an interim stay of a bail order pending cancellation proceedings, such power must be exercised very sparingly and with due regard to the accused's right to liberty under Article 21. The Court emphasized that a stay should not be granted mechanically or without recording reasons. It noted that in the present case, the stay was granted without hearing the appellant and without any justification, and the main cancellation application was not heard expeditiously. The Court set aside the stay order and laid down guidelines for the exercise of this power: (i) stay should not be granted as a routine; (ii) reasons must be recorded; (iii) the accused should be heard before passing a stay, unless exceptional circumstances exist; (iv) if stay is granted, the main application must be heard expeditiously; (v) in appropriate cases, the court may impose additional conditions instead of staying the bail. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Bail - Cancellation of Bail - Interim Stay of Bail Order - Section 439(2) CrPC, Section 483(3) BNSS - The High Court or Sessions Court has the inherent power to grant an interim stay of an order granting bail pending disposal of an application for cancellation of bail, but such power must be exercised very sparingly, with due regard to the accused's right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, and only after recording reasons and hearing the accused, unless exceptional circumstances justify an ex parte order. (Paras 10-12) B) Criminal Procedure - Bail - Cancellation of Bail - Grounds for Cancellation - Section 439(2) CrPC - Bail can be cancelled not only for breach of conditions or misconduct but also if the bail order is wholly unjustified, patently illegal, or perverse, as held in Puran v. Rambilas and Gulabrao Baburao Deokar v. State of Maharashtra. (Paras 9-10) C) Constitutional Law - Right to Liberty - Article 21 of the Constitution of India - Interim stay of a bail order amounts to curtailment of liberty; therefore, courts must be slow in granting such drastic relief and must ensure that the accused is not deprived of liberty without a strong prima facie case for cancellation. (Para 10) D) Criminal Procedure - Bail - Interim Stay - Guidelines - Section 439(2) CrPC - The Supreme Court laid down guidelines: (i) stay should not be granted mechanically; (ii) reasons must be recorded; (iii) accused should be heard before stay; (iv) if stay is granted, the main cancellation application must be heard expeditiously; (v) in appropriate cases, additional conditions may be imposed instead of stay. (Paras 12-13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court or Sessions Court has the power to grant an interim order of stay of operation of an order granting bail till the disposal of the application for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (or corresponding Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), and if so, what are the contours of such power.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that while the High Court has the power to grant an interim stay of a bail order pending cancellation proceedings, such power must be exercised very sparingly, with reasons, and after hearing the accused. The impugned stay order was set aside as it was passed without reasons and without hearing the appellant. The Court laid down guidelines for the exercise of this power. The appeals were disposed of.
Law Points
- Power to grant interim stay of bail order is implicit in Section 439(2) CrPC
- but must be exercised sparingly
- with reasons
- and only in exceptional circumstances
- liberty under Article 21 cannot be curtailed without strong justification
- stay should not be granted mechanically or without hearing the accused
- if stay is granted
- the main cancellation application must be heard expeditiously.
