NO AUTOMATIC VACATION OF STAY ORDERS IN PENDING TRIALS: PAWAN AGARWAL V STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH1
The Supreme Court has reiterated that there cannot be an automatic vacation of a stay order if the trial has not concluded.
Background
Pawan Agarwal filed a petition under §482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC), seeking to quash a chargesheet filed against him. The High Court passed an interim stay order directing that no coercive action should be taken against him till the next hearing date. As the High Court did not extend this interim stay, it was automatically vacated as per Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency v CBI2, while the quashing petition was still pending.
Thereafter, Mr Agarwal filed an application under §438 of the CrPC seeking pre-arrest bail before the High Court, which was dismissed. The High Court held that such an application is not maintainable during the pendency of a quashing petition. Mr Agarwal challenged this order before the Supreme Court by filing a special leave petition.
Decision
During the pendency of the Supreme Court proceedings, Asian Resurfacing was overruled by High Court Bar Association Allahabad v State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors3. The Supreme Court noted this and held that there cannot be an automatic vacation of stay orders. The Supreme Court further held that:
- Since the trial against Mr Agarwal had not concluded, the High Court’s stay order should continue to operate from the date on which Asian Resurfacing was overruled; and
- No coercive action could be taken against Mr Agarwal unless the High Court vacates or varies its stay order.
However, the Supreme Court did not interfere with the order of the High Court refusing to grant pre-arrest bail under §438 of the CrPC.
Footnotes
1. Crl A No 001307/2024
2. (2018) 16 SCC 299
3. (2024) 6 SCC 267
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
