Supreme Court shocked by Delhi HC's extended stay on bail order without specific reasons
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed shock over the Delhi High Court’s decision to extend a stay on a regular bail order for more than a year without providing specific reasons. The apex court also questioned the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for defending the High Court's interim stay on the trial court's bail order.
The Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih, heard the petition of Parvinder Singh Khurana, accused in a money laundering case, challenging the Delhi HC's temporary stay on the trial court’s June 2023 order granting him bail.
Expressing surprise at the prolonged stay by the Delhi HC, Justice Oka questioned why the High Court was delaying the bail when Khurana was not accused of terrorism. The stay had been issued following a petition by the ED seeking to cancel the bail granted to Khurana.
Advocate Zoheb Hossain, representing the ED, argued that the trial court had granted bail without considering all factors of the case. He noted that three judges of the Delhi HC had recused themselves from hearing the ED’s application for the cancellation of Khurana’s bail.
When the Supreme Court bench asked the ED to justify the Delhi HC's single-line order staying the bail, Hossain explained that the parties had no control over the court's decision to provide reasons in its orders. He expressed the prosecution's helplessness but emphasized that Khurana was involved in laundering significant amounts of illegally acquired funds.
Justice Oka acknowledged that both the ED and the apex court bore some responsibility regarding the case. The bench reserved its judgment and allowed the ED's advocate to submit a detailed note within two days.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
'Must stop': SC censures lawyers for filing 'bulky' appeals
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Thursday deprecated lawyers for filing "bulky" appeals which run into a number of pages and annexing unnecessary documents.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said, "What is this tendency? In synopsis, case law is cited, grounds are there in synopsis. And there is a very bulky compilation. Every matter we see now in Supreme Court, in first part of synopsis people cite quotations then the grounds of appeal are reproduced in synopsis. This must stop."
The bench went on, "What kind of bulky compilation is being thrown at us? The bulk of the compilation depends upon the monetary capacity of the litigant and capacity to engage senior advocate. This is happening everyday. We have forgotten the basic rule that pleadings should not contain law."
The top court expressed "shock" on finding in such compilations synopses of cases, grounds of challenge aside from case laws.
"We deprecate this tendency. A copy of this order shall we forwarded to the Supreme Court advocates on-record association," it added.
_vb_52_vb_41.jpeg)
