The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling, has held that high courts can stay an order of discharge only in exceptional cases, reinforcing the principle that an accused discharged by a trial court is on a higher legal pedestal than even an acquitted person. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan in the case of Sudershan Singh Wazir v. State (NCT of Delhi).
Background of the Case
The appellant, Sudershan Singh Wazir, was implicated in a case related to the murder of a former Member of the Legislative Council of Jammu and Kashmir and the Chairman of the Jammu and Kashmir Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee. He was charged under Sections 302 (murder), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), 34 (common intention), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with provisions of the Arms Act. His name was included in the case only in the third supplementary charge sheet.
On October 20, 2023, the Additional Sessions Judge discharged Wazir of all charges, citing a lack of sufficient material to proceed with a trial. Following his discharge, Wazir was released from custody upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹25,000 and one surety of the same amount.
However, the State (NCT of Delhi) challenged this discharge order before the Delhi High Court in a revision application, seeking a stay on the discharge. On October 21, 2023, the high court, without hearing Wazir, issued an ex-parte stay on the discharge order. Later, on November 4, 2024, the high court directed Wazir to surrender to judicial custody, reasoning that the stay order effectively nullified his discharge.
Key Legal Issues
Whether a high court can stay an order of discharge pending revision proceedings.
Scope of revisional powers under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Whether Section 390 CrPC, which allows a high court to direct an accused to be taken into custody in an appeal against acquittal, applies to discharge orders.
Whether the Delhi High Court’s stay order and subsequent direction for surrender were legally sustainable.
Observations of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, while quashing the high court’s orders, emphasized that staying a discharge order is a “drastic measure” that effectively revives the criminal proceedings against the accused without deciding the merits of the revision application.
“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 grant of stay to the order of discharge amounts to the grant of final relief, as the trial can proceed against him,” the Court observed.
It further held that a discharged accused enjoys a higher legal standing than an acquitted person because, in the case of acquittal, the accused has already faced trial, whereas a discharged person is released before the commencement of the trial itself.
The Court underscored that while the high court does have the power to stay orders under Section 397 CrPC, such a stay on discharge orders should be exercised only in “rare and exceptional cases” where the discharge order is ex-facie perverse.
“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. However, such an order should be passed only after giving an opportunity of being heard to the accused,” the Court stated.
Applicability of Section 390 CrPC to Discharge Orders
The Supreme Court also analyzed the applicability of Section 390 CrPC, which allows an appellate court to issue a warrant for the arrest of an accused in cases of acquittal. It clarified that although Section 390 can be invoked in revisional proceedings against a discharge order, such power must be exercised cautiously.
“In view of Section 401(1) of the CrPC, the revisional court can exercise power under Section 390 in a given case. However, as a normal rule, where an order under Section 390 of the CrPC is passed, the accused must be admitted to bail rather than committed to prison,” the Court held.
Final Directions of the Supreme Court
In light of its findings, the Supreme Court quashed the Delhi High Court’s orders of October 21, 2023, and November 4, 2024. It ruled that Wazir cannot be taken into custody solely because the discharge order was stayed. However, as a precautionary measure, the Court directed him to furnish fresh bail before the Sessions Court within four weeks.
Key directives from the judgment:
The high court’s ex-parte stay order on the discharge was quashed.
Wazir was directed to furnish fresh bail before the Sessions Court.
The high court was instructed to decide the revision application expeditiously.
The high court was permitted to cancel Wazir’s bail if it found that he was delaying proceedings.
