Sudershan Singh Wazir vs State NCT of Delhi (2025): Supreme Court on Bail and Discharge Orders - Case Analysis

The case of Sudershan Singh Wazir vs State NCT of Delhi (2025) gathered attention due to its implications for criminal jurisprudence especially regarding the balance between an accused’s right to liberty and right of the Prosecution to challenge discharge orders. The direction issued by the Delhi High Court for surrender raised concerns over judicial discretion, procedural fairness and interpretation of Section 390 CrPC. Discover more in-depth analyses of important Supreme Court decisions by exploring Recent Judgments.

The recent case of Sudershan Singh Wazir vs State NCT of Delhi (2025) revolves around the legal implications of a discharge order and rights of an accused post-discharge. The case analyzes whether a stay on a discharge order mandates the accused’s surrender and applicability of Section 390 and Section 482 of CrPC. The intervention of the Supreme Court in this case played an important role in reaffirming the principle that bail should be the norm while an appeal or revision against acquittal or discharge is pending.

Download Sudershan Singh Wazir vs State NCT of Delhi PDF

The case at hand revolves around the legality of the discharge order of the Appellant and the legal impact of its stay by the High Court. The issues include whether a stay on a discharge order necessitates the accused’s surrender, scope of judicial custody post-discharge and interpretation of Section 390 and Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. The intervention of the Supreme Court highlights the balance between an accused’s right to liberty and Prosecution’s right to challenge discharge. The following are the brief facts of the case of Sudershan Singh Wazir vs State NCT of Delhi -

Initial Accusation and Chargesheet

The Appellant Sudershan Singh Wazir was implicated in a case registered under a First Information Report for offences punishable under Section 302, Section 201 and Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Earlier, he was not named in the FIR but was later formally arraigned as an accused in the third supplementary chargesheet under Section 302, Section 201, Section 34 and Section 120B of Indian Penal Code along with Section 25 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Discharge by the Trial Court

On 20th October, 2023, the learned Additional Sessions Judge by order discharged the Appellant Sudershan Singh Wazir from all alleged offences, subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent. Upon fulfilling this condition, the Appellant was released from custody on the same day.

Challenge to the Discharge Order

The 1st Respondent i.e., NCT of Delhi challenged the discharge order by filing a revision application before the High Court of Delhi and sought a stay on the discharge order. By an ex-parte order dated 21st October 2023, the Single Judge of the High Court granted a stay on the discharge order, which was subsequently extended from time to time.

Direction of the Delhi High Court for Surrender

In the revision proceedings, the 1st Respondent NCT of Delhi filed an application under Section 390 and Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, requesting a direction for the Appellant to surrender to judicial custody and contending that the stay on the discharge order negated its benefits.

By an order dated 4th November 2024, the High Court of Delhi held that the Appellant cannot claim the benefit of the discharge order due to the stay. The High Court observed that failure to secure the custody of the Appellant would render the stay order ineffective. Consequently, the Appellant was ordered to surrender before the Trial Court and was granted the liberty to apply for bail thereafter.

Intervention of the Supreme Court

Aggrieved by the order of the Delhi High Court, directing his surrender, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court, which, on 11th November 2024, stayed the High Court’s order. 

The case of Sudershan Singh Wazir vs State NCT of Delhi addressed various important issues regarding the rights of an acquitted or discharged person, powers of appellate and revisional courts and principles governing bail under Section 390 CrPC. The following issues were addressed in this case are:

• Applicability of Section 390 CrPC: Whether an appellate court can order the arrest of an accused while considering an appeal against acquittal and whether bail should be the norm in such cases?
• Power of High Courts in Revision Proceedings Against Discharge Orders – Whether the High Court, while hearing a revision application against a discharge order, can direct the accused to surrender?
• Legality of Ex Parte Stay Orders – Whether an ex parte stays on a discharge order, without hearing the accused, is valid?

In Sudershan Singh Wazir vs State NCT of Delhi Section 390 and Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code played a significant role. The following are the analysis of these provisions -

Section 390 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Arrest of accused in appeal from acquittal

Section 390 of Criminal Procedure Code empowers the Appellate Court to order the arrest of an accused when an appeal against acquittal is filed. The provision also permits the court to commit the accused to custody or grant bail while the appeal is pending.

Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Saving of Inherent power of the High Court

Section 482 (Now Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023) vests inherent powers in the High Court to make orders necessary to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.

On 28th February, 2025, the 2-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan in Sudershan Singh Wazir vs State NCT of Delhi held that bail should be the norm when an Appellate Court invokes Section 390 of Criminal Procedure Code to arrest an accused in an appeal against acquittal. The highlighted that an order of acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence, placing an acquitted person on a higher pedestal than an accused facing trial. It held that custody under Section 390 CrPC should only be ordered in rare and exceptional cases.

The Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan extended this principle to revision proceedings against an order of discharge. The Court in Sudershan Singh Wazir vs State NCT of Delhi explained that the High Court may direct a discharged person to appear before the Trial Court, it should ordinarily grant bail on appropriate terms rather than committing the accused to custody. It also observed that staying a discharge order should be an exception rather than a routine practice in criminal cases.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Appellant Sudershan Singh Wazir and set aside the orders passed by the Delhi High Court that stayed his discharge and ordered him to surrender in the 2021 murder case of Trilochan Singh Wazir. The Court in Sudershan Singh Wazir vs State NCT of Delhi held that the ex parte stay order was illegal as it was passed without granting Wazir an opportunity to be heard.

Thus, the Supreme Court in Sudershan Singh Wazir vs State NCT of Delhi directed that:

1. The impugned orders dated 21st October, 2023 and 4th November, 2024, were set aside.
2. The Appellant Wazir must furnish fresh bail under Section 390 of the CrPC.
3. The Delhi High Court should determine the revision application independently without being influenced by the findings of the Supreme Court.
4. The Respondents were allowed to seek an expedited hearing of the revision application.

The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sudershan Singh Wazir bolstered the principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” ensuring that judicial discretion under Section 390 CrPC is exercised in a manner that upholds the presumption of innocence and procedural fairness.

In Sudershan Singh Wazir vs State NCT of Delhi (2025) the Supreme Court affirmed that bail should be the norm under Section 390 of Criminal Procedure Code and highlighted the presumption of innocence. The decision set a precedent ensuring that procedural safeguards are upheld while allowing Appellate and Revisional courts to exercise discretion in exceptional circumstances.