High Court ends controversy on validity of interim bail orders

Chandigarh, August 1
Putting to an end the controversy on the validity of the interim bail orders, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a significant judgment has ruled that it would continue till vacated or modified.

The judgment, affecting almost all criminal cases where interim relief is granted, is significant as it clarifies that the benefit will stand extended on its own, if it is not specifically granted for a certain period.

Clarifying the law, Justice Alok Singh has asserted: In the opinion of this court, if the courts grant interim order saying “meanwhile”, it would be in force till it is vacated or modified.

Elaborating, Justice Alok Singh has asserted since the order is already in existence, “there is no need for the court to extend the order again and again on every date fixed. “Interim order requires extension only when the interim order is passed for a fixed period, that is till the next date of listing”. The ruling came just before Justice Alok Singh held a sub-inspector has prima facie committed contempt of court by arresting a groom despite interim protection.

“I am of the prima facie view that SI Malook Singh has committed contempt of court by arresting Paras Sharma, accused, in total violation of the protection granted by this court to him.

Going into the background of the controversy, Justice Alok Singh observed an abduction case was registered on February 28 at Ferozepur on the statement of Sukhdev Raj, after he alleged Sunita was allured by Paras on the pretext of marriage.

The couple too moved the High Court for protection of life and liberty after claiming they had tied the knot against their parents’ wishes.

Acting on the plea, the court ordered: “Meanwhile, the petitioner number two - Paras Sharma - shall not be arrested or harmed in any manner….”

Justice Alok Singh observed the Ferozepur senior superintendent of police said Paras Sharma’s arrest could not be dubbed as violation of the court order March 3, as the court on April 18 had not extended the interim protection granted to him.

Justice Alok Singh concluded the court on April 18 “never vacated the order dated March 3”. “let the matter be placed before the Bench hearing contempt for appropriate directions on the judicial side”.

The judgment

• Interim bail orders would continue until vacated or modified
• This ruling affects almost all criminal cases where interim relief is granted
• The benefit will stand extended on its own if it is not granted for a fixed period
• Requires extension only when the interim order is passed till the next date of listing