Supreme Court sets aside Delhi High Court stay on discharge of SS Wazir in murder case

The Supreme Court on Friday set aside the Delhi High Court's decision to stay a trial court order discharging former President of Jammu and Kashmir State Gurdwara Parbandhak Board Sudershan Singh Wazir in a murder case [Sudarshan Singh Wazir v. State (NCT of Delhi)]..A Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan held that an order of stay on discharge should never be granted unless the circumstances are exceptional."An order staying the order of discharge is a very drastic order which has the effect of curtailing or taking away the liberty granted to the accused by the discharge order ... the stay of the discharge order has a grave consequence of depriving an accused of the liberty granted under the discharge order. The grant of stay to the order of discharge amounts to the grant of final relief, as the trial can proceed against him .... It is only in rare and exceptional cases where the order of discharge is ex-facie perverse that the revisional Court can take the extreme step of staying that order," the Court held. .The Bench added that before taking such an extreme step of staying a discharge order, the accused person must be given an opportunity of hearing. Furthermore, if a court decides to pass such a stay order after hearing the accused, the stay order should also ensure that the criminal trial against the accused does not proceed until a final decision is taken on the validity of the discharge. "Moreover, while granting the stay, the Court must mould the relief so that the trial does not proceed against the discharged accused. If the trial against a discharged accused proceeds, even before the revision application against an order of discharge is decided, the final outcome of the revision will become fait accompli," the Court said. .The Court found that none of these steps were taken before an ex-parte interim order was passed to stay the discharge of Wazir. The Court, therefore, quashed the Delhi High Court's stay order and asked it to decide the matter afresh. "The ex-parte order of stay of the order of discharge should not have been passed by the High Court. The consequences of such an order are very drastic as alluded to hereinabove. Hence, the ex-parte order of stay is entirely illegal," the Court said. The top court added that Wazir should be granted bail by the concerned trial court in the meanwhile, until the High Court takes a final call on the validity of his discharge from the murder case. .Wazir, a prominent Sikh leader, had been arrested by the Delhi Police in February 2023 in connection with the murder of former National Conference (NC) leader Trilochan Singh Wazir in September 2021.However, he and two others were discharged by the trial court on October 20, 2023. The murder charges were framed against only one accused, Harmeet Singh.Interestingly, the very next day after the trial court decision, the State mentioned a revision petition before the Delhi High Court. While issuing notice on the State's plea, Justice Vikas Mahajan stayed the operation of the discharge order. Since Wazir had already been released after he was cleared of the charges, the Delhi Police later moved an application for his surrender. The same was allowed by Justice Anish Dayal on November 4.Wazir then moved the top court for relief..In November 2024, the Court stayed the High Court decision and expressed shock over it."How can an order of discharge be stayed? It is completely unheard of. Absolute shocking affairs. If the Court will start staying order of discharge, then trial will proceed. How can this happen? We will have to set down the law. The manner in which power is exercise by High Court," Justice Oka had orally remarked then..The Court proceeded to grant him relief today by setting aside the High Court's stay order and its subsequent order asking Wazir to surrender.The top court explained that an order of discharge stands on a higher pedestal than the grant of bail, which too can only be stayed in exceptional cases according to the law laid down in the case of Parvinder Singh Khurana v. Directorate of Enforcement."The order of discharge stands on a higher pedestal than the order granting bail. By grant of bail, the status of the accused does not cease to be that of an accused, but when the order of discharge is passed, he ceases to be an accused. The power of the Court to stay the order granting bail can be exercised only in rare and exceptional cases. As a discharged accused stands on a still higher pedestal than an accused released on bail, the law laid down in the case of Parvinder Singh Khurana will apply more strictly and rigorously while dealing with the application for grant of stay of the order of discharge," the Court said.The Bench added that while examining the validity of a discharge order in an exercise of revisional jurisdiction powers, instead of simply passing a stay order, a court can always order that the accused remain on bail until a final call is taken."Passing an order under Section 390 directing the discharged accused to admit to bail is sufficient to procure the presence of the discharged accused at the time of hearing of the revision application and for undergoing trial if the order of discharge is set aside," the Court said..Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra appeared for Wazir..Additional Solicitor General Satya Darshi Sanjay appeared for the National Capital Territory of Delhi..[Read Judgment]