Consequences Very Drastic: Supreme Court Sets Aside ‘Illegal’ Ex-Parte Stay On Discharge Order Against Sikh Leader In Ex-MLC Trilochan Wazir's Murder Case

The Court set aside the Order passed by the Delhi High Court wherein the State’s Application under Section 390 of the Cr.P.C. was allowed. The High Court had held that as the Order of discharge was no longer operative, the status of the Appellant as an accused had been restored, and therefore, could be taken into custody.

A Bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held, “In our view, the ex-parte order of stay of the order of discharge should not have been passed by the High Court. The consequences of such an order are very drastic as alluded to hereinabove. Hence, the ex-parte order of stay is entirely illegal. Consequently, the second impugned order deserves to be set aside.”

The Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra appeared for the Appellant, while Additional Solicitor General Satya Darshi Sanjay represented the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Appellant was charged under Sections 302, 201, 34 and 120B of the IPC read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. He was not named in the FIR but was included in the third supplementary charge sheet.

The Trial Court in 2023 passed an Order discharging the Appellant from all charges, Consequently, he was released from custody on the same day after furnishing the bond.

Stay of Discharge Order

The State (NCT of Delhi) challenged the discharge Order by filing a revision application before the High Court. The High Court, through an ex-parte Order dated October 21, 2023, stayed the Order of discharge. On November 4, 2024, the High Court directed the Appellant to surrender after holding that he cannot avail the benefit of a prior discharge order by the Trial Court.

The High Cour held that the Appellant, who had secured release following the discharge order, must return to custody, observing that the stay effectively paused the discharge order and reinstated his status as an accused.

On November 11, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a stay on the High Court’s second order while allowing the High Court to continue hearing the revision application.

Court’s Reasoning

The Supreme Court examined the scope of the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC and held that while the High Court has the power to stay an impugned order, such discretion should be exercised only in “rare and exceptional cases.”

“It is only in rare and exceptional cases where the order of discharge is ex-facie perverse that the revisional Court can take the extreme step of staying that order. However, such an order should be passed only after giving an opportunity of being heard to the accused. Moreover, while granting the stay, the Court must mould the relief so that the trial does not proceed against the discharged accused. If the trial against a discharged accused proceeds, even before the revision application against an order of discharge is decided, the final outcome of the revision will become fait accompli,” it remarked.

The Court held, “Passing an order under Section 390 directing the discharged accused to admit to bail is sufficient to procure the presence of the discharged accused at the time of hearing of the revision application and for undergoing trial if the order of discharge is set aside.”

“There is nothing placed on record to show that till the second impugned order was passed, at any time, the High Court had given an opportunity to the appellant to be heard on the prayer for stay. The second impugned order runs into as many as twenty-six pages and involves 62 paragraphs, which, in substance, holds that as the order of discharge was no longer operative, the status of the appellant as an accused has been restored, and therefore, he shall be forthwith taken into custody,” the Bench remarked.

Consequently, the Court held, “The impugned orders dated 21st October 2023 and 4th November 2024 are, hereby, quashed and set aside.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.

Cause Title: Sudershan Singh Wazir v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 281)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra; Advocates Rajiv Mohan, Meeran Maqbool, Mihir Joshi, Akanksha Gupta, Aranya Sinha, Nitika Pancholi and Vivek Rajan D.B.; AOR Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki

Respondents: Additional Solicitor General Satya Darshi Sanjay; AOR Mukesh Kumar Maroria and Nitin Saluja; Advocates Kartikeya Asthana, Shaurya Rai, Alabhya Dhamija, Akshay Amritanshu, Satya Jha, Arjun Deewan

Click here to read/download the Judgment