Courts should not just stay bail orders… Why and in which case did the Supreme Court say so?

New Delhi : The Supreme Court on Thursday said that courts should not “casually” stay bail orders as it affects the liberty of the individual. The Supreme Court expressed displeasure over the Delhi High Court staying a bail order for over a year during which the accused remained in jail. A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih expressed surprise that the high court stayed a trial court order granting bail to an accused in a money laundering case and kept the matter pending for a year. This forced the accused to approach the Supreme Court. The bench told ED counsel Zoheb Hussain, “What is happening? This is shocking. Please answer our question. Can bail be stayed like this? Unless he is a terrorist, what is the reason for the stay? Can you defend? We will set it aside… How casually the high court stayed the bail

The bench said that such a practice cannot be permitted as it is a matter of personal liberty. The bench said, 'The High Court passed the order very casually. It stayed the bail order and then the case was heard after a year. During this period the court did not bother to look into the matter and he continued to languish in jail.'

The bench reserved its order but Hussain requested the court to give him at least 10 minutes to argue the case on behalf of the ED on Friday as any order passed by the apex court would have an impact on other cases as well. He said the prosecution was not at fault for the delay.

On the bail matter, the Supreme Court said, “We are concerned about the liberty aspect. After getting bail, the person has to remain in jail for one year.” The bench allowed Hussain to present case law on the issue.

The court was hearing a plea by a man named Parvinder Khurana, who was granted bail by the trial court in a PMLA case on June 17 last year but the order was stayed by the High Court. The Supreme Court on June 7 stayed the High Court order and restored Khurana's bail.