PARVINDER SINGH KHURANA versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: [2024] 7 S.C.R. 979 · Decided: 23-07-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 7 S.C.R. 979 : 2024 INSC 546
Parvinder Singh Khurana 
v. 
Directorate of Enforcement
(Criminal Appeal No. 3059-3062 of 2024)
23 July 2024
[Abhay S. Oka* and Augustine George Masih, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The issue involved in these appeals concerns the power of the 
High Court or Sessions Court to grant an interim order of stay of 
operation of an order granting bail till the disposal of the application 
for cancellation of bail under sub-Section (2) of Section 439 of the 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Sub-Section (3) of Section 
483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is the 
corresponding provision of sub-section (2) of Section 439 of the 
CrPC.
Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.439 – Bharatiya Nagarik 
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – s.483(3) – Application for cancellation 
of bail – Power to grant an interim stay of order granting bail 
to be exercised only in exceptional cases: 
Held: In an application made under Section 439(2) of the CrPC 
or Section 483(3) of the BNSS or other proceedings filed seeking 
cancellation of bail, the power to grant an interim stay of operation 
of order to bail can be exercised only in exceptional cases when 
a very strong prima facie case of the existence of the grounds for 
cancellation of bail is made out – While granting a stay of an order 
of grant of bail, the Court must record brief reasons for coming to 
a conclusion that the case was an exceptional one and a strong 
prima facie case is made out. [Para 20(a)]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.439 – Bharatiya Nagarik 
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – s.483 – An Ex-parte interim stay of 
the bail order should not be granted:
Held: As a normal rule, the ex-parte stay of the bail order should 
not be granted – The said power can be exercised only in rare and 
very exceptional cases where the situation demands the passing 
* Author
980
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
of such drastic order – Where such a drastic ex-parte order of 
stay is passed, it is the duty of the Court to immediately hear the 
accused on the prayer for continuation of the interim relief – When 
the Court exercises the power of granting ex-parte ad interim 
stay of an order granting bail, the Court is duty bound to record 
reasons why it came to the conclusion that it was a very rare and 
exceptional case where a drastic order of ex-parte interim stay 
was warranted. [Para 20(b)]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.439 – Bharatiya Nagarik 
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – s.483(3) – An ECIR was registered 
by respondent Enforcement Directorate for an offence 
punishable u/s.4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act –  
Thereafter, a complaint was filed u/s.44(1)(b) of PMLA – 
Appellant was arrested – By order dated 17.06.2023, the Special 
Court declined to grant bail u/s.167(2) of the CrPC, however, 
granted regular bail after recording a finding that the appellant 
satisfied the twin conditions for grant of bail incorporated in  
s.45(1)(ii) of the PMLA – Respondent-ED applied u/s.439(2) 
of the CrPC for cancellation of bail – On 23.06.2023, the 
High Court stayed the order granting bail – After several 
adjournments, on 22.05.2024 appellant was granted liberty 
to apply for interim bail:
Held: The order dated 23.06.2023 records the presence of the 
advocate representing the accused – However, the High Court did 
not hear the Advocate before granting stay – It was an ex-parte order 
of stay – The failure to hear the advocate for the accused and the 
failure to record reasons vitiates the order of stay – The order dated 
23.06.2023 indicates that stay was granted without applying mind 
to the merits of the prayer for grant of stay – The Court ignored that 
the drastic order of stay of bail order had continued for 11 months 
which was passed without considering the merits – From 23.06.2023 
till the end of June 2024, the application for cancellation of bail 
was listed on 28 different dates – On perusal of the order dated 
17.06.2023 passed by the Special Court granting regular bail, it 
records a finding that the appellant has made out a case in terms 
of Section 45(1)(ii) of the PMLA on the power to grant bail – There 
are no allegation of the misuse of liberty granted under the bail 
order in the application for cancellation of bail – All the grounds in 
the said application are on merits – After having perused the said 
order (17.06.2023), this Court finds that the case was not the one 
that could have been term
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.