Does the mere filing, or the contemplation, of an appeal by the State suspend a court order directing a prisoner's release?

Paragraph 9Having understood the meaning of the word as above; we may at this stage itself deal with one of the contentions of the respondent State. As noticed supra, it has been argued that the order of the learned Single Judge is contrary to law since the appellant was never released on the three prior paroles as required by law, and so the question of permanent parole does not arise. We are of the considered view that such a contention must be forcefully negated for the simple reason that the respondent State has never, on its own, challenged the findings of the learned Single Judge. That being the case, it is not open for the respondent State to raise a question regarding the legality of the order at this belated stage. In our considered view, the principle of “obey first, appeal later” ought to have been applied. Going a step further, it is well settled that mere preferring of an appeal would not, by itself, operate as a stay of the order impugned therein. See Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. Federal Motors (P) Ltd.[^17] In fact, this Court has observed:- 73. It is the sole discretion of the appellate authority under the Act to decide the appeal based on the facts involved in the appeal, and legal provisions which eventually result in passing a judicial order. No higher court can pass such directions merely on anticipation of an order being passed by an appellate authority. It is only after the order is passed, that the aggrieved person has a legal right to take recourse to a legal remedy available in law against such order by approaching to a higher forum and pray for grant of appropriate relief against such order. 74. A fortiori, the Court cannot stay or/and quash the orders in anticipation, before they are passed. We cannot, therefore, uphold such writ/directions issued by the High Court. A judicial order or decree remains in operation unless stayed, modified, or set aside; mere filing of an appeal or application would not, by itself, automatically keep the order in abeyance. This Court has further held : Karnataka Housing Board v. C. Muddaiah, (2007) 7 SCC 689 32. We are of the considered opinion that once a direction is issued by a competent court, it has to be obeyed and implemented without any reservation. If an order passed by a court of law is not complied with or is ignored, there will be an end of the rule of law. If a party against whom such order is made has grievance, the only remedy available to him is to challenge the order by taking appropriate proceedings known to law. But it cannot be made ineffective by not complying with the directions on a specious plea that no such directions could have been issued by the court. In our judgment, upholding of such argument would result in chaos and confusion and would seriously affect and impair administration of justice. The argument of the Board, therefore, has no force and must be rejected. Prithawi Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand, (2004) 7 SCC 261 “8. If any party concerned is aggrieved by the order which in its opinion is wrong or against rules or its implementation is neither practicable nor feasible, it should always either approach the court that passed the order or invoke jurisdiction of the appellate court. Rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be urged in contempt proceedings. Right or wrong, the order has to be obeyed. Flouting an order of the court would render the party liable for contempt. …” Mohd. Iqbal Khanday v. Abdul Majid Rather, (1994) 4 SCC 34 “18. …Greater respect should have been shown to court and if he was aggrieved by the order, he should have taken prompt steps to invoke the appellate procedures. The appellant could not ignore the order and plead the difficulties of implementation at the time contempt proceedings are initiated. …”