The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed concern over the implications of a 2023 Delhi High Court order which stayed the discharge of a murder accused without hearing him [Sudarshan Singh Wazir v. State (NCT of Delhi)]..Questioning the impact of the order on due process and the rights of accused, a Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said,"Our legal system is such that even complete justice was done to Ajmal Kasab. In this case, an ex parte stay has been granted.".The Court was hearing a plea filed by Sudershan Singh Wazir, the former President of the Jammu and Kashmir State Gurdwara Parbandhak Board, challenging the Delhi High Court’s decision to stay his discharge in a murder case.Wazir was arrested in February 2023 in connection with the murder of former National Conference leader Trilochan Singh Wazir, who was killed in September 2021. The trial court discharged Wazir and two others on October 20, 2023, citing insufficient evidence to frame charges against them. However, the very next day, the Delhi Police approached the High Court. On November 4, 2023, the High Court stayed the discharge order, effectively nullifying Wazir's release..During the proceedings, the Supreme Court took a critical view of the High Court’s handling of the case. The Bench highlighted that the stay on the discharge order allowed the trial to proceed against Wazir, even though the discharge itself had not been formally set aside. The Bench also raised concerns about the burden on the accused, pointing out that Wazir would have to navigate a lengthy process of applying for bail in lower courts, with little certainty of success, potentially requiring him to approach the Supreme Court."He will go to the session court, which will not grant bail. The High Court will not grant bail either. Then he will have to come to the Supreme Court. Is this how our legal system is supposed to work?".The Court further questioned the rationale of requiring Wazir to surrender, especially when the discharge order could eventually be upheld. It went on to say,"He surrenders after a stay on discharge, and later, if the discharge is upheld and he is released again, will the State pay some compensation to him?".The Court also emphasised that interim relief, such as staying a discharge order, should not create a scenario where the accused suffers undue hardship or a violation of their rights.The case will be heard next week, when the Court will consider submissions from the prosecution.
The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed concern over the implications of a 2023 Delhi High Court order which stayed the discharge of a murder accused without hearing him [Sudarshan Singh Wazir v. State (NCT of Delhi)]..Questioning the impact of the order on due process and the rights of accused, a Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said,"Our legal system is such that even complete justice was done to Ajmal Kasab. In this case, an ex parte stay has been granted.".The Court was hearing a plea filed by Sudershan Singh Wazir, the former President of the Jammu and Kashmir State Gurdwara Parbandhak Board, challenging the Delhi High Court’s decision to stay his discharge in a murder case.Wazir was arrested in February 2023 in connection with the murder of former National Conference leader Trilochan Singh Wazir, who was killed in September 2021. The trial court discharged Wazir and two others on October 20, 2023, citing insufficient evidence to frame charges against them. However, the very next day, the Delhi Police approached the High Court. On November 4, 2023, the High Court stayed the discharge order, effectively nullifying Wazir's release..During the proceedings, the Supreme Court took a critical view of the High Court’s handling of the case. The Bench highlighted that the stay on the discharge order allowed the trial to proceed against Wazir, even though the discharge itself had not been formally set aside. The Bench also raised concerns about the burden on the accused, pointing out that Wazir would have to navigate a lengthy process of applying for bail in lower courts, with little certainty of success, potentially requiring him to approach the Supreme Court."He will go to the session court, which will not grant bail. The High Court will not grant bail either. Then he will have to come to the Supreme Court. Is this how our legal system is supposed to work?".The Court further questioned the rationale of requiring Wazir to surrender, especially when the discharge order could eventually be upheld. It went on to say,"He surrenders after a stay on discharge, and later, if the discharge is upheld and he is released again, will the State pay some compensation to him?".The Court also emphasised that interim relief, such as staying a discharge order, should not create a scenario where the accused suffers undue hardship or a violation of their rights.The case will be heard next week, when the Court will consider submissions from the prosecution.
