“If courts ‘cave in’ when great rights are gouged within the sound-proof, sight-proof precincts of prison houses, where, often, dissenters and minorities are caged, Bastilles will be re-enacted. When law ends tyranny begins; and history whispers, iron has never been the answer to the rights of man. Therefore we affirm that imprisonment does not spell farewell to fundamental rights although, by a realistic re-appraisal, courts will refuse to recognise the full panoply of Part III enjoyed by a free citizen.”
- Justice Krishna Iyer, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India, in Charles Sobraj v Supdt., Central Jail, (1978) 4 SCC 104, Para 4.
In a recent case, Parvinder Singh Khurana v Directorate of Enforcement, the Supreme Court affirmed the Special Court’s order granting bail to the accused in a money laundering case. The Divisional Bench consisting of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih set aside the impugned order of Delhi High Court which had stayed the order of the Special Court. The SC judgment is authored by Justice Oka.
If an application for cancelling the bail under Section 439(2) is pending before the court, then whether the High Court or Sessions Court can grant an interim order of stay was the moot question before the Supreme Court. In this case, the Supreme Court had to examine the extent of the power of the High Court or Sessions Court to grant an interim order of stay of an order that had granted bail. Repeated adjournments in the case highlight the endemic problem within the Indian Judiciary. Section 439(2) of the CrPC, 1973 states that “A High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person who has been released on bail under this chapter be arrested and commit him to custody”. This means that the High Court or Sessions Court have the power to cancel bail.