The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice on a plea by Sikh leader Sudershan Singh Wazir who sought release from a murder case on the grounds of discharge being granted by Home Secretary Delhi on 20 September on the basis of recommendations of Special Cell Delhi Police. A division bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih not only stopped Wazir from surrendering but also passed an order that no proceedings in the trial might go on against Wazir until further order.The Supreme Court issued notice returnable on 28.01.2025 and the case of Wazir is to be included in the first five cases on that date. That particular incident of murder of former State National conference MLC Trilochan Singh Wazir in September, 2021, shook the Union Territory of JK, and Sadarshn Singh Wazir, the then President of the Jammu and Kashmir State Gurdwara Parbandhak Board , stands implicated into the ugly act. On November 4th the Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Anish Dayal permitted an application by the prosecution to stay the discharge order that has earlier been passed by the trial court in favour of Wazir and several co accused persons.The trial court on the 26th October,2023 had discharged Sudershan Singh Wazir along with co accused Balbir Singh, Harpreet Singh Khalsa and Rajinder Chaudhary Later on, the prosecution appealed in this respect and the High Court halted the discharge order of the trial court. Out of those accused discharged at that time, three had already been taken into judicial custody while Wazir was released on 20th October 2022. After the High Court stayed the discharge order, the prosecution filed another application for Wazir’s extradition, contending that his release was as a result of the trial court order that has been stayed.This led the High Court while making the order granting application of the prosecution to point out that since, Wazir was released by virtue of the discharge order and that discharge had been put under stay the release likewise became void. It claimed that Wazir could not continue being protected by an order that was on appeal. The High Court observed that for the stay order to mean something, the custody of Wazir needed to be guaranteed “ineffective, of no consequence, and bereft of any teeth.” The High Court further said that Wazir was free to seek bail in the lower court and the prayer would be addressed on merits.