PARVINDER SINGH KHURANAversusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

                  [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 termed a rare and exceptional case where an
[2024] 7 S.C.R.                                                          981

        Parvinder Singh Khurana v. Directorate of Enforcement


     order granting bail ought to be stayed – Therefore, the impugned
     orders by which the High Court granted the stay of order granting
     bail are set aside. [Paras 14, 15, 16, 19, 21]

                             Case Law Cited
     Gulabrao Baburao Deokar v. State of Maharashtra [2013] 16 SCR
     1181 : (2013) 16 SCC 190; Narendra Kumar Amin v. CBI (2015)
     3 SCC 417; Puran v. Rambilas [2001] 3 SCR 432 : (2001) 6 SCC
     338 – referred to.

                               List of Acts
     Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
     Sanhita, 2023.

                            List of Keywords
     Bail; Regular bail; Interim stay of order granting bail; Grounds
     for cancellation of bail; Exceptional cases; Ex-parte interim stay
     of the bail order; Misuse of liberty granted under the bail order;
     Application of mind to the merits of the prayer for grant of stay;
     Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 483(3)
     of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

                           Case Arising From

     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos. 3059-
     3062 of 2024
     From the Judgment and Order dated 23.06.2023 in CRLMC No. 4374
     of 2023 and CRLMA No. 16638 of 2023 in CRLMC No. 4374 of 2023
     and dated 22.05.2024 in CRLMA No. 16638 of 2023 and CRLMA
     No. 13874 of 2024 in CRLMC No. 4374 of 2023 passed by the High
     Court of Delhi at New Delhi

                        Appearances for Parties

     Sudhanshu Shashikumar Choudhari, Sr. Adv., Ms. Madhusmita Bora,
     Harsh Sethi, Pawan Kishore Singh, Dipankar Singh, Anant Nigam,
     Raghav Luthra, Advs. for the Appellant.
     Tushar Mehta, SG, Zoheb Hussain, Annam Venkatesh, Vivek Gurnani,
     Abhipriya, Vivek Gaurav, Samrat Goswami, Ms. Aakriti Mishra, Arvind
     Kumar Sharma, Advs. for the Respondent.
982                                                           [2024] 7 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


                  Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                  Judgment
       Abhay S. Oka, J.
1.     Leave granted.
       ISSUE INVOLVED
2.     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 (for short, ‘the CrPC’). Sub-Section
       (3) of Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for
       short, ‘the BNSS’) is the corresponding provision of sub-section (2) of
       Section 439 of the CrPC. The same issue arises in other proceedings
       adopted for challenging an order of grant of bail.
       FACTUAL ASPECTS
3.     On 1st December 2020, the Central Bureau of Investigation registered
       a crime against two companies and two individuals for the offences
       punishable under Section 120-B read with Sections 420,467,468 and
       471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section
       13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The subject matter
       of offence, inter alia, was the loan account of Jay Polychem India
       Ltd. On 23rd February 2021, the respondent Enforcement Directorate
       registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) for an
       offence punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money
       Laundering Act (for short, ‘the PMLA’). Eleven persons were shown
       as accused in ECIR. However, the appellant was not shown as an
       accused. On 30th October 2021, the respondent filed a complaint
       before the Special Court under Section 44(1)(b) of PMLA. Even in
       the complaint, the appellant was not shown as an accused. From
       31st October 2020 to 20th January 2023, the respondent called the
       appellant for investigation several times. Though the appellant
       cooperated, on 20th January 2023, the appellant was arrested.
4.     The first bail application made by the appellant was rejected by the
       Special Court by the order dated 10th March 2023. On 17th March
       2023, the respondent filed a supplementary complaint under the
       PMLA in which the appellant was shown as an accused. On 29th
[2024] 7 S.C.R.                                                         983

        Parvinder Singh Khurana v. Directorate of Enforcement


     April 2023, the appellant filed two separate applications seeking bail.
     In the first application, a prayer was made to grant a default bail
     under Section 167 (2) of the CrPC. The second application was for
     a grant of regular bail under Section 439 of the CrPC. By the order
     dated 17th June 2023, though the Special Court declined to grant
     bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC, granted regular bail after
     recording a finding that the appellant satisfied the twin conditions
     for grant of bail incorporated in Section 45(1)(ii) of the PMLA. On
     21st June 2023, the respondent applied under Section 439(2) of the
     CrPC before the High Court. On 23rd June 2023, the learned Single
     Judge of the Delhi High Court, sitting as a Vacation Judge, directed
     that the case should be listed before him on 26th June 2023 at 2.30
     pm, and in the meanwhile, the order granting bail will remain stayed.
     This is the first impugned order. The hearing could not be held on
     26th June 2023. On 28th June, 2023, the case was listed before
     another learned Single Judge who continued the interim relief of
     stay. Thereafter, the application was adjourned from time to time.
     Once the application for cancellation of bail was fully argued before
     a learned judge and, the order was reserved. However, the Judge
     recused himself. Thereafter, there were two more recusals.
5.   On 2nd May 2024, the application for cancellation of bail was adjourned
     to 9th July 2024. On 3rd May 2024, the appellant applied to vacate the
     stay order. The application was listed on 22nd May 2024. The application
     for vacating stay could not be heard due to paucity of time. The learned
     Single Judge passed an order directing that the main application shall
     be heard on 9th July 2024 which was the date earlier fixed. The learned
     Judge, however, granted liberty to apply for interim bail.
6.   Aggrieved by the first order granting stay passed on 23rd June 2023
     and the second order dated 22nd May 2024 granting liberty to the
     appellant to apply for interim bail, these appeals have been preferred.
     This Court, by the order dated 7th June 2024, stayed the order of
     stay dated 23rd June 2023 and clarified that the appellant would be
     entitled to benefit of the order dated 17th June 2023 passed by the
     Special Court granting bail. Accordingly, the appellant has been
     enlarged on bail.
     SUBMISSIONS
7.   The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has taken us through
     various orders of the High Court. He pointed out that the application
984                                                          [2024] 7 S.C.R.

                            Digital Supreme Court Reports


       for cancellation of bail was listed on 24 to 25 dates from 23rd June
       2023 to July 2024. One learned Single Judge, after reserving the
       judgment, recused himself. After that, two other learned Single Judges
       recused themselves. His submission is that the order granting bail
       was casually stayed by the High Court on 23rd June 2023 without
       examining the merits of the case and without recording any reasons.
       He submitted that if the benefit of the order granting bail is allowed
       to be taken away by such a cryptic order of interim stay passed
       without application of mind, it will violate the liberty guaranteed to
       the appellant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
8.     Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has produced a
       compilation of documents. He stated that in several cases, even
       this Court had stayed the order granting bail while issuing notice
       on prayer for cancellation of bail without recording any reasons.
       Relying upon two decisions of this Court in the case of Gulabrao
       Baburao Deokar v. State of Maharashtra1 and Narendra Kumar
       Amin v. CBI,2 he submitted that the power to cancel the bail is not
       confined to the ground of breach of terms and conditions on which
       bail was granted. If the order granting bail is unjustified, illegal or
       perverse, an order of cancellation of bail can be passed. He also
       relied on this Court’s decision in the case of Puran v. Rambilas.3
       He submitted that when there is a power to set aside or cancel the
       order granting bail, there always exists a power to stay the order
       pending final adjudication of the prayer for cancellation of bail. He
       pointed out that the same learned Special Judge had rejected the
       regular bail application made by the appellant by the order dated
       10th March 2023, and only after three months, on 17th June 2023,
       the same learned Judge granted bail though there was no change
       in circumstances. He submitted that in view of this position, the High
       Court was justified in granting the interim stay on 23rd June 2023.
       CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS
       GROUNDS FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL
9.     Regarding the grounds available for cancellation of bail under Section
       439(2), we can conveniently refer to a decision of this Court in the


1    [2013] 16 SCR 1181 : (2013) 16 SCC 190
2    (2015) 3 SCC 417
3    [2001] 3 SCR 432 : (2001) 6 SCC 338
[2024] 7 S.C.R.                                                            985

        Parvinder Singh Khurana v. Directorate of Enforcement


     case of Gulabrao Baburao Deokar.1 In paragraph 27 of the said
     decision, it was held thus:
           “27. Thus, it could certainly be said that the order passed
           by the Sessions Judge was an order passed in breach of
           the mandatory requirement of the proviso to Section 439(1)
           CrPC. It is also an order ignoring the material on record,
           and therefore without any justification and perverse. As
           held by this Court in Puran v. Rambilas [(2001) 6 SCC
           338: 2001 SCC (Cri) 1124], the High Court does have
           the power under Section 439(2) CrPC to set aside an
           unjustified, illegal or perverse order granting bail. This
           is an independent ground for cancellation as against
           ground of the accused misconducting himself.”
                                                     (emphasis added)
     As held in the case of Puran v. Rambilas,3 apart from the ground
     that the accused has committed breaches of terms and conditions
     on which bail is granted, if he has otherwise misconducted himself,
     the High Court or Sessions Court can exercise power under Section
     439(2) of CrPC to cancel the bail. Bail can be cancelled if the bail
     order is wholly unjustified, patently illegal, or perverse. Once it is held
     that there is a power vesting in the High Court or Sessions Court
     to cancel bail by exercising power under Section 439(2) of CrPC,
     it follows that the power to stay an order granting bail is implicit in
     the Court dealing with the applications. The question is about the
     contours of the exercise of power to grant a stay.
     POWER TO GRANT INTERIM STAY OF ORDER GRANTING BAIL
10. When a person is arrested, the rights guaranteed by Article 21 of
    the Constitution of India get substantially curtailed. The law permits
    arrests of the accused as provided in the CrPC or the BNSS. The
    effect of the grant of bail under the provisions of Sections 437 and 439
    of the CrPC (Sections 480 and 483 of the BNSS) is that the liberty
    of the undertrial accused is restored pending the trial, subject to the
    accused complying with the conditions of bail. When the High Court
    or Sessions Court stays such an order, it amounts to taking away
    the liberty granted under the order of bail. When an application for
    cancellation of bail is filed, the High Court or Sessions Court should
    be very slow in granting drastic interim relief of stay of the order
986                                                           [2024] 7 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       granting bail. The reason is when a Court competent to grant bail
       finds the accused entitled to be enlarged on bail unless the said order
       is set aside on the limited grounds of cancellation available under
       sub-section (2) of Section 439 of CrPC or any other proceedings,
       the accused who has been granted bail cannot be normally deprived
       of his right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
       Even if the order granting bail is not stayed, the accused can always
       be taken into custody if the bail is finally cancelled.
11. While issuing notice on an application for cancellation of bail,
    without passing a drastic order of stay, if the facts so warrant,
    the High Court can, by way of an interim order, impose additional
    bail conditions on the accused, which will ensure that the accused
    does not flee. However, an order granting a stay to the operation
    of the order granting bail during the pendency of the application
    for cancellation of bail should be passed in very rare cases. The
    reason is that when an undertrial is ordered to be released on
    bail, his liberty is restored, which cannot be easily taken away for
    the asking. The undertrial is not a convict. An interim relief can be
    granted in the aid of the final relief, which could be finally granted
    in proceedings. After cancellation of bail, the accused has to be
    taken into custody. Hence, it cannot be said that if the stay is not
    granted, the final order of cancellation of bail, if passed, cannot
    be implemented. If the accused is released on bail before the
    application for stay is heard, the application/proceedings filed for
    cancellation of bail do not become infructuous. The interim relief
    of the stay of the order granting bail is not necessarily in the aid
    of final relief.
12. The Court dealing with the application for cancellation of bail can
    always ensure that notice is served on the accused as soon as
    possible and that the application is heard expeditiously. An order
    granting bail can be stayed by the Court only in exceptional cases
    when a very strong prima facie case of the existence of the grounds
    for cancellation of bail is made out. The prima facie case must be of
    a very high standard. By way of illustration, we can point out a case
    where the bail is granted by a very cryptic order without recording
    any reasons or application of mind. One more illustration can be of
    a case where material is available on record to prove serious misuse
    of the liberty made by the accused by tampering with the evidence,
    such as threatening the prosecution witnesses. If the High Court or
[2024] 7 S.C.R.                                                         987

        Parvinder Singh Khurana v. Directorate of Enforcement


     Sessions Court concludes that an exceptional case is made out for
     the grant of stay, the Court must record brief reasons and set out
     the grounds for coming to such a conclusion.
13. An ex-parte stay of the order granting bail, as a standard rule, should
    not be granted. The power to grant an ex-parte interim stay of an
    order granting bail has to be exercised in very rare and exceptional
    cases where the situation demands the passing of such an order.
    While considering the prayer for granting an ex-parte stay, the
    concerned Court must apply its mind and decide whether the case
    is very exceptional, warranting the exercise of drastic power to grant
    an ex-parte stay of the order granting bail. Liberty granted to an
    accused under the order granting bail cannot be lightly and causally
    interfered with by mechanically granting an ex-parte order of stay of
    the bail order. Moreover, the Court must record specific reasons why
    it concluded that it was a very rare and exceptional case where a
    very drastic order of ex-parte interim stay was warranted. Moreover,
    since the issue involved is of the accused’s right to liberty guaranteed
    by Article 21 of the Constitution, if an ex-parte stay is granted, by
    issuing a short notice to the accused, the Court must immediately
    hear him on the continuation of the stay.
     ON FACTS OF THE CASE
14. Now, we come to the facts of the case. The order dated 23rd June
    2023 records the presence of the advocate representing the accused.
    Therefore, the High Court ought to have heard the Advocate before
    granting the stay. But that was not done. Thus, 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 application
    for cancellation of bail was placed before the High Court on 23rd June
    2023. The order dated 23rd June 2023 indicates that without even
    applying mind to the merits of the prayer for a grant of stay, the ex-
    parte stay was granted, and the application was ordered to be listed
    at 2.30 pm on 26th June 2023. However, the case was not heard on
    that day. After 23rd June 2023, the case appeared on 28th June before
    another Single Judge. He directed that the case be listed before the
    roster bench on 3rd July 2023. The order of stay was extended. On
    3rd July 2023, the case was adjourned to 14th July 2023. On 14th
    July 2023, 7th August 2023, and 17th August 2023, arguments were
    heard on the application for cancellation of bail. For one reason or
988                                                          [2024] 7 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       another, further arguments could not be heard on 28th August 2023,
       5th September 2023, 4th October 2023, 16th October 2023, 19th
       October 2023, and 3rd November 2023. Meanwhile, interim relief
       of stay of the order granting bail was continued from time to time.
15. The order of the High Court passed on 10th November 2023 records
    that the arguments were heard and judgment was reserved. After
    that, on 22nd December 2023, the application was listed for directions
    when the learned Judge, who had heard the arguments, passed an
    order directing that the application be listed before another Judge.
    From 8th January 2024 to 5th March 2024, the application was
    repeatedly adjourned without any hearing. On 5th March 2024, the
    case was again re-notified for 11th March 2024. On 11th March 2024,
    the learned Single Judge before whom the case was placed on eight
    earlier dates recused himself. On 12th March 2024, the case was
    shifted to another Single Judge who again passed an order of recusal.
    Incidentally, the same learned Judge had passed the ex-parte stay
    order on 23rd June 2023. After that, the case was adjourned on 18th
    March, 10th April and 2nd May 2024. On 2nd May 2024, the case
    was again adjourned to 9th July 2024. This compelled the appellant
    to apply to vacate the interim stay. The application for vacating stay
    was listed on 22nd May 2024, which was not heard due to paucity of
    time, and even the said application was adjourned to 9th July 2024,
    which was a date already fixed. The said order dated 22nd May 2024
    does not make a happy reading. The order reads thus:
            "1.   The matter could not be heard due to paucity of time.
            2.    List the matter on 09.07.2024 at 12:30 PM.
            3.    In case of any urgency in the matter or on any ground for
                  which the petitioner wants to seek interim bail, it will be
                  well within his right to do so and the same will be decided
                  on merits as per law.
            4.    Interim order(s), if any, to continue, till the next date of
                  hearing.
            5.    Copy of this order be given dasti under the signature
                  Court Master.
            6.    The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.”
       The application moved before the Court was for vacating the stay.
[2024] 7 S.C.R.                                                          989

        Parvinder Singh Khurana v. Directorate of Enforcement


     It is very difficult to understand the propriety of granting liberty to
     the appellant to apply for interim bail without even touching the
     application for vacating interim relief. The High Court ignored the
     extreme urgency of hearing the application for vacating the 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. The appellant got no solace by the direction of the High Court
     that a copy of the said order be given dasti and that the same shall
     be uploaded forthwith.
16. In this case, it is so apparent from the first impugned order dated 23rd
    June 2023 that the order granting bail was mechanically stayed without
    considering merits. The application was kept on 26th June 2023 at 2.30
    pm. The High Court ought to have heard the parties on the prayer for
    interim relief on 26th June 2023 if the main application for cancellation
    of bail could not be heard. From 23rd June 2023 till the end of June
    2024, the application for cancellation of bail was listed on 28 different
    dates. As noted earlier, there were three recusals. One recusal was
    made more than one month after the judgment was reserved. The
    result of all this is that the ex-parte order of stay granted on 23rd
    June 2023, without considering the merits of the case, continued to
    operate for one year. Thus, the order of stay granted without hearing
    the accused continued to operate for more than one year without
    hearing the accused on merits. Whether such an approach violated
    the fundamental right to liberty of the appellant is a serious question
    we must ask ourselves. Except for stating that this is a sorry state
    of affairs, we cannot say anything further as we must show restraint.
    Ultimately, in vacation, this Court granted a stay on 7th June 2024 to
    the order of stay, paving the way for the appellant’s release on bail
    in terms of the order dated 17th June 2023, passed one year ago.
17. There may be good reasons for three learned Judges to have recused
    themselves. But surely, the ex-parte order staying the order of bail
    passed without considering merits cannot continue to operate for
    one year without the appellant getting a hearing on the issue of
    continuation of the interim order. All Courts have to be sensitive
    about the most important fundamental right conferred under our
    Constitution, which is the right to liberty under Article 21.
18. The first application for regular bail filed by the appellant was rejected
    by the Special Court by the order dated 10th March 2023. At that
990                                                            [2024] 7 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       time, further investigation was in progress following filing the first
       complaint on 30th October 2021. The appellant was not named as
       an accused in the FIR of the predicate offence, ECIR, or in the first
       complaint under the PMLA. Within seven days after the first bail
       application was rejected, a second complaint was filed in which the
       appellant was shown as an accused for the first time. In view of the
       filing of the complaint, it was open for the appellant to file a second
       bail application based on a change in circumstances brought about by
       the supplementary complaint. The change was that the investigation
       against the appellant was completed.
19. We have carefully perused the order dated 17th June 2023 granting
    regular bail. After a detailed discussion, 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. We have perused the application
    made by the respondent before the High Court for cancellation of
    bail. We find no allegation of the misuse of liberty granted under the
    bail order in the said application. All the grounds are on merits. The
    order dated 17th June 2023 granting bail is a detailed order running
    into more than 50 pages, which considers the material on record
    from both complaints under the PMLA. After having perused the
    said order, we find that the case was not the one that could have
    been termed a rare and exceptional case where an order granting
    bail ought to be stayed.
20. Our conclusions are as under:
       a.   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;
       b.   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
            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
[2024] 7 S.C.R.                                                          991

           Parvinder Singh Khurana v. Directorate of Enforcement


             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.
21. Therefore, the appeals must succeed. We set aside the impugned
    orders by which the High Court granted the stay of the order granting
    bail. We make it clear that pending the hearing of application for
    cancellation of bail, the order dated 17th June, 2023 passed by the
    Special Court will continue to operate. We make it clear that all the
    contentions on the merits of the application for cancellation of bail
    are expressly left open to be decided by the High Court. The findings
    recorded in the judgment are only for considering the legality and
    validity of the order of stay on the order granting bail.
22. The appeals are, accordingly, allowed on the above terms.

     Result of the case: Appeals allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan