SUDERSHAN SINGH WAZIR Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTUAL ASPECTS : The appellant was arraigned as an accused in connection with a First Information Report (for short, 'the FIR') for the offences punishable under Ss. 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC'). He was not named in the FIR and was formally arraigned as an accused in the 3rd Supplementary Chargesheet under Sec. 302, 201, 34, 120B IPC read with 25, 27 of the Arms Act. The learned Additional Sessions Judge passed an order dtd. 20/10/2023 discharging the present appellant in connection with all the offences subject to furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000.00 with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent. Pursuant to the said order of discharge, the appellant was released from custody on the same day after he furnished the bond.

(2.) A revision application was filed by the first respondent- NCT of Delhi, challenging the order of discharge before the High Court of Delhi. A prayer was made in the revision application for stay of the order of discharge. By the first impugned order dtd. 21/10/2023, while issuing a notice in the revision application, the learned Single Judge of the High Court stayed the discharge order. It was an ex-parte order of stay, which was extended from time to time. An application was filed under Sec. 390, read with Sec. 482 of the CrPC, by the first respondent in the revision application seeking a direction against the appellant to surrender to judicial custody on the ground that the discharge order has already been stayed. By the second impugned order dtd. 4/11/2024, the learned Single Judge of the High Court held that on account of the stay granted by the High Court, the appellant cannot avail the benefit of the discharge order. Therefore, the High Court observed that if the custody of the appellant is not secured, the order of stay granted by the first impugned order will become ineffective. Therefore, by the second impugned order, the appellant was directed to surrender before the Trial Court and was granted liberty to apply for bail thereafter. While issuing notice on 11/11/2024, this Court stayed the second impugned order. However, this Court clarified that the High Court was free to proceed with the hearing of the revision application.

(3.) Shri Siddharth Luthra, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the High Court ought not to have stayed the order of discharge. The consequence of the stay order is that the trial will proceed against the appellant, though he has been discharged. He submitted that unless the order of discharge is set aside, the trial cannot proceed. He submitted that the appellant has been discharged for the cogent reasons recorded and that the order cannot be nullified by granting a stay. He submitted that the grant of stay to the discharge order would virtually amount to allowing the revision application without examining the merits or demerits of the discharge order. He submitted that the appellant has complied with the directions issued by the Sessions Court of furnishing bail in accordance with Sec. 437A of the CrPC. Therefore, the presence of the appellant is secured, if at all, he is required to face trial.