Supreme Court clarifies the power to stay discharge orders in criminal revisions: Sudershan Singh Wazir vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (28 February 2025)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 28 February 2025

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

Can a High Court stay an order of discharge in a criminal revision, effectively curtailing the liberty of an individual? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in Sudershan Singh Wazir v. State (NCT of Delhi). The court examined the scope of the revisional jurisdiction of High Courts under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), specifically focusing on the power to stay discharge orders. Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The appellant, Sudershan Singh Wazir, was named as an accused in a First Information Report (FIR) concerning offences punishable under Sections 302 (murder), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Although not initially named in the FIR, he was formally arraigned as an accused in the 3rd Supplementary Chargesheet under Sections 302, 201, 34, 120B (criminal conspiracy) IPC read with 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The Additional Sessions Judge discharged the appellant on 20th October 2023, subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety of a like amount. He was released from custody the same day after furnishing the bond.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The State (NCT of Delhi) filed a revision application before the High Court of Delhi, challenging the discharge order. In this application, a prayer was made for a stay of the discharge order.

On 21st October 2023, the Single Judge of the High Court issued a notice in the revision application and stayed the discharge order ex-parte. This stay was extended from time to time.

Subsequently, the first respondent filed an application under Section 390, read with Section 482 of the CrPC, seeking a direction against the appellant to surrender to judicial custody, arguing that the discharge order had been stayed.

On 4th November 2024, the High Court held that due to the stay, the appellant could not avail the benefit of the discharge order. The High Court directed the appellant to surrender before the Trial Court and granted him liberty to apply for bail thereafter.

On 11th November 2024, the Supreme Court stayed the High Court’s order directing surrender but allowed the High Court to proceed with the hearing of the revision application.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the scope of the revisional jurisdiction of High Courts under Sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC. These sections empower the High Court to examine the correctness, legality, or propriety of any finding, sentence, or order of any inferior Criminal Court.

Section 397(1) of the CrPC states:

“397. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision. —(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself; to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling, for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record.”

Section 401 of the CrPC outlines the High Court’s powers of revision:

“401. High Court’s powers of revision. —(1) In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by itself or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High Court may, in its discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by sections 386, 389, 390 and 391 or on a Court of Session by section 307, and, when the Judges composing the Court of Revision are equally divided in opinion, the case shall be disposed of in the manner provided by section 392.”

The Court also considered Section 227 of the CrPC, which deals with discharge:

“227. Discharge. —If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.”

And Section 228 of the CrPC, which deals with the framing of charge:

“228. Framing of charge. —(1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which — (b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.”

The court also discussed Section 390 of the CrPC:

“390. Arrest of accused in appeal from acquittal. —When an appeal is presented under section 378, the High Court may issue a warrant directing that the accused be arrested and brought before it or any Subordinate Court, and the Court before which he is brought may commit him to prison pending the disposal of the appeal or admit him to bail.”

Finally, the court also mentions Section 437A of the CrPC:

“437A. Bail to require accused to appear before next appellate Court. —(1) Before conclusion of the trial and before disposal of the appeal, the Court trying the offence or the Appellate Court, as the case may be, shall require the accused to execute bail bonds with sureties, to appear before the higher Court as and when such Court issues notice in respect of any appeal or petition filed against the judgment of the respective Court and such bail bonds shall be in force for six months.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions (Shri Siddharth Luthra):

• ✓ The High Court should not have stayed the order of discharge, as it allows the trial to proceed against the appellant despite his discharge.
• ✓ Unless the discharge order is set aside, the trial cannot proceed.
• ✓ The appellant was discharged for cogent reasons, and the stay order nullifies this without examining the merits of the discharge order.
• ✓ Granting a stay to the discharge order is akin to allowing the revision application without proper examination.
• ✓ The appellant has complied with Section 437A of the CrPC by furnishing bail, ensuring his presence if required for trial.

Respondent’s Submissions (Shri Satya Darshi Sanjay, ASG):

• ✓ A strong prima facie case exists to proceed against the appellant based on the charge sheet.
• ✓ The case involves the serious murder of a former Member of the Legislative Council of Jammu and Kashmir.
• ✓ Evidence includes CCTV footage, CDR, and eye-witnesses.
• ✓ The discharge order is perverse, and the High Court correctly noted that the Sessions Judge overlooked material evidence.
• ✓ Under Sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC, the High Court has the power to stay or suspend the operation of the impugned order.
• ✓ As per Section 401(1) of the CrPC, the High Court can exercise all powers of the Court of Appeal under Sections 386, 389, 390, and 391 of the CrPC.
• ✓ The High Court has the power under Section 390 of the CrPC to direct that the appellant be committed to prison.
• ✓ Considering the prima facie finding, the High Court was justified in ordering the appellant to be taken into custody.

Respondent’s Submissions (Shri Arjun Deewan):

• ✓ Relied on the Constitution Bench decision in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Poosu & Ors [CITATION: (1976) 3 SCC 1], arguing that once a revision application against the order of discharge is admitted, the status of the appellant as an accused is revived, and the trial must proceed against him.
• ✓ Cited Amin Khan v. State of Rajasthan & Ors [CITATION: (2009) 3 SCC 776] and State of Maharashtra v. Mahesh Kariman Tirki & Ors [CITATION: (2022) 10 SCC 207] to support the argument that the power under Section 390 of the CrPC has been correctly exercised and that a higher Court can always stay the order of discharge.

Summary of Submissions

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. What is the power of the Revisional Court to stay the order of discharge?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• ✓ State of Uttar Pradesh v. Poosu & Ors [CITATION: (1976) 3 SCC 1]: The Court acknowledged that once an appeal against acquittal is admitted, the status of the person acquitted as an accused can be said to be restored.
• ✓ Amin Khan v. State of Rajasthan & Ors [CITATION: (2009) 3 SCC 776]: The Court referred to this case to emphasize the correct exercise of power under Section 390 of the CrPC.
• ✓ State of Maharashtra v. Mahesh Kariman Tirki & Ors [CITATION: (2022) 10 SCC 207]: The Court distinguished this case, noting that the drastic order of stay was passed under peculiar circumstances and is not relevant to the present case.
• ✓ Parvinder Singh Khurana v. Directorate of Enforcement [CITATION: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1765 : 2024 INSC 546]: The Court relied on this case to emphasize that the power of the Court to stay the order granting bail can be exercised only in rare and exceptional cases.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to protect individual liberty and ensure fair application of legal procedures. The Court emphasized that staying a discharge order is a drastic measure that should only be used in exceptional circumstances. The Court was also concerned about the implications of an ex-parte stay order, which could significantly curtail the rights of the accused without providing an opportunity to be heard.

Logical Reasoning

Issue: Power of the Revisional Court to stay the order of discharge

Step 1: Consideration of Material on Record and Submissions of Parties

Step 2: Conclusion on Whether There is Sufficient Ground for Proceeding Against the Accused

Step 3: If No Sufficient Ground, Discharge the Accused

Step 4: Order of Discharge Passed When There is No Sufficient Material to Proceed Against the Accused

Step 5: Person Discharged Ceases to be an Accused

Step 6: Order Staying the Order of Discharge is a Very Drastic Order

Step 7: Such an Order Should be Passed Only After Giving an Opportunity of Being Heard to the Accused

Key Takeaways

• ✓ High Courts must exercise caution when staying discharge orders, doing so only in rare cases where the order is manifestly perverse.
• ✓ Accused persons must be given an opportunity to be heard before a stay order is issued against their discharge.
• ✓ Courts should consider imposing additional bail conditions rather than automatically ordering custody.

Directions

1. The impugned orders dated 21st October 2023 and 4th November 2024 are quashed.
2. The High Court will decide the revision application without being influenced by any observations made in this judgment.
3. The appellant is directed to appear before the Sessions Court within four weeks and furnish bail effective until the disposal of the revision application.
4. The Sessions Court shall impose usual conditions while admitting the appellant to bail, including cooperating with the High Court for the early disposal of the revision application.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the power to stay an order of discharge should be exercised sparingly and with caution, ensuring that the accused has an opportunity to be heard. The Court also clarified that while Section 390 of the CrPC can be invoked, the normal rule is to grant bail rather than commit the accused to prison.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Sudershan Singh Wazir v. State (NCT of Delhi) clarifies the limitations on the High Court’s power to stay discharge orders in criminal revisions. The Court emphasized the importance of protecting individual liberty and ensuring fair legal procedures. The directions provided by the Court aim to strike a balance between the interests of justice and the rights of the accused.