Bail order cannot be stayed indefinitely merely because a similar case is before a larger Bench; relief restored.

A High Court should not keep a bail order in abeyance merely because a similar bail matter has been referred to a larger Bench, especially where there is no independent adverse finding against the accused. Here, the Special Judge had granted bail on consideration of the materials and relevant decisions, but the High Court stayed that relief solely due to the reference in another case, leaving the appellant incarcerated indefinitely. The reliance on Rule 66 of the NDPS Rules did not justify such a suspension in the circumstances. The stay order was set aside and the bail order was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in staying the order granting bail to the appellant merely because the order in a similar matter had been referred to a larger Bench, and whether the stay deserved to be lifted.

Analysis: The appellant had been granted bail by the Special Judge on a detailed consideration of the materials and the relevant decisions. The High Court stayed that order only because the bail order in a similar case had been referred to a larger Bench, with the result that the appellant remained incarcerated without any immediate prospect of final disposal of the connected matter. Such indefinite suspension of a bail order, without any independent adverse finding against the appellant, was held to be neither proper nor fair. The reliance on Rule 66 of the NDPS Rules did not justify keeping the bail order in abeyance in the circumstances of the case.

Conclusion: The stay order passed by the High Court was set aside and the order granting bail to the appellant was restored.

---