In a significant intervention on judicial discipline and criminal procedure, the Supreme Court has stepped in to examine how a blanket stay on a criminal investigation came to be granted by the Bombay High Court, raising concerns over roster changes, lack of reasoning, and deviation from settled law governing interference with ongoing probes.
The controversy arose from interim orders passed by different Division Benches of the Bombay High Court in two connected criminal writ petitions linked to an FIR. Initially, one Bench had taken up the matter, directed the accused to cooperate with the investigation, protected them from arrest for a limited period, and clearly indicated that the petitions were to be heard finally at the admission stage.
However, following a change in roster, the matter was placed before another Bench, which admitted the petitions and granted interim relief effectively staying the investigation, without recording reasons or explaining the departure from the earlier detailed interim directions.
The Apex Court found this approach troubling. Referring to its landmark ruling in Niharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, the Court underscored that High Courts must exercise extreme caution before stalling criminal investigations. It noted that the impugned order “clearly falls short” of the standards laid down for granting such relief and observed that it was improper for a later Bench to “practically sit in appeal over” an earlier interim order without justification.
Highlighting the absence of reasons for staying the probe, the Court declined to endorse the blanket protection and instead directed the aggrieved party to first approach the High Court seeking reconsideration. Consequently, the special leave petitions were disposed of with liberty to return to the Apex Court if relief is denied.
Picture Source :
