"Normally, Bail Should Not Be Paused": Supreme Court's Big Ruling

High courts should pause bail orders only in extraordinary cases, the Supreme Court has said, setting aside a ruling of Delhi High Court and granting the relief to an accused in a money laundering case.

Parvinder Singh Khurana, an accused in a money laundering case, had approached the Supreme Court after the Delhi High Court paused the bail granted him by the trial court.

"Normally bail should not be paused," a bench of Justice AS Oka and Justice AG Masih said, while underlining that a pause on bail orders should not be issued in a routine manner.

During the course of the hearing, the Supreme Court had expressed surprise that Mr Khurana's bail order had been paused for about a year. The court had asked what message was going out if relief is denied to an accused for such a long duration without strong evidence.

Mr Khurana had been granted bail by a special court. The Enforcement Directorate thereafter approached the high court and the relief was paused in June last year.

The Supreme Court observed that one cannot curtail liberty as a practice and that it will be disastrous. The court pointed to the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had cited cases in which accused in such cases had fled abroad. But the court said such a pause on bail is understood if a person is accused in a terror case.

The court's observations are significant as several top politicians, including Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and his party colleague and senior AAP leader Manish Sisodia, are in jail after being arrested in the money laundering case linked to Delhi's now-scrapped liquor policy. The Enforcement Directorate is probing the case under the stringent Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).