Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s stay and surrender order — Held that stay on discharge orders should only be granted in rare and exceptional circumstances after giving the accused an opportunity to be heard.

a. A discharged accused stands on a higher pedestal than an accused granted bail — Liberty cannot be lightly interfered with. b. Ex-parte stay orders on discharge require strong prima facie evidence of perversity in the discharge order. c. Section 390 CrPC should be exercised sparingly — The accused must generally be admitted to bail rather than committed to prison. (Paras: 14, 16, 18, 20, 22)

Acts and Sections:

• Constitution of India (COI) — Article 21 (Right to Liberty)

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 227, 228, 390, 397, 401, 437A

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 302, 201, 34, 120B

• Arms Act, 1959 — Sections 25, 27

Subjects:

Revisional Jurisdiction — Discharge Order — Stay Order — Liberty — Acquitted Accused — Judicial Custody — Bail — Prima Facie Case — Exceptional Circumstances — Personal Bond

Nature of Litigation: Criminal Appeal against High Court’s stay on discharge order and subsequent direction for surrender to judicial custody.

Relief Sought: The appellant sought quashing of the High Court’s ex-parte stay order and the direction for surrender.

Reason for Filing: The appellant challenged the deprivation of liberty despite being discharged by the Sessions Court.

Prior Decisions: Sessions Court discharged the appellant; High Court stayed the discharge order and directed surrender.

Issues:

a. Whether the High Court was justified in staying the discharge order without hearing the accused. b. Whether the order directing the appellant’s surrender was legally sustainable. c. Whether the High Court exercised its revisional jurisdiction appropriately.

d. The scope of powers under Section 390 of the CrPC.

Submissions/Arguments:

• Appellant: The High Court’s stay nullified the discharge order without assessing its merits — Liberty of discharged accused must be protected.

• Respondent: Serious charges warrant continued judicial custody — High Court had the authority to stay the discharge order.