Bail Condition That Accused Shall Furnish Bail Bonds 6 Months After Passing Of Order Can't Be Imposed : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently (October 24) dismissed two special leave petitions challenging the bail orders of the Patna High Court. It set aside the orders passed by the High Court and remitted the matter back to the High Court for a fresh hearing on merits, not before orally remarking that they have repeatedly witnessed bail orders passed by the High Court without assigning reasons.

The SLP concerns two bail orders passed by the High Court on September 11 and 19 respectively, wherein it imposed bail conditions that the bail bond would be furnished after five and six months of the date of passing of the respective orders. 

The HC granted bail to the accused on September 19 in connection with offences punishable under Sections 30(a) and 32(3) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act.

As per the bail order, he stated: "Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, the petitioner, above-named, is directed to furnish bail bond after six months from today and on doing so, the court below shall release the petitioner on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned 3rd Exclusive Special Excise Court, Saran at Chapra in connection with Sadar Excise P.S. Case No. 125 of 2024, subject to the following condition:- (i) The petitioner shall cooperate in the disposal of trial and make himself available as and when required by the court."

Similar condition was imposed on the September 11 bail order: "Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, let the petitioner above-named, is directed to furnish bail bond after five months from today and on doing so, the court below shall release the petitioner on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned 3rd Exclusive Special Excise Court, Saran at Chapra in connection with Doriganj P.S. Case No. 130 of 2024, subject to the following condition:- (i) The petitioner shall cooperate in the disposal of trial and make himself available as and when required by the court."

A bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma on being informed of the bail conditions, remarked that the judge passed the order not just without assigning reasons but also such imposed bail conditions. 

The Court stated that if the High Court is satisfied on merits, it can "either grant or reject the bail" but such conditions cannot be imposed. It said: This is one of the few orders we have come across in last few days passed by the High Court, in which, without deciding the matter on merits, the High Court has granted the bail to the present petitioner, subject to the condition that the petitioner-accused shall furnish the bail bonds after six months of the passing of the order. There are no reasons assigned as to why the implementation  of the order granting bail was postponed for six months. In our opinion, no such condition could be imposed for grant of bail to a person/accused. If the Court is satisfied on merits, it should grant bail or otherwise, reject the same."

Advocate Shivam Singh (for the petitioner) submitted: "This is a case where petitioners are admitted on bail and then the hon'ble High Court says that the bail bond will be furnished 6 months later."

To this, both judges in unison expressed their concerns and Justice Bela even added that on that day itself, several cases where the concerned High Court judge has passed orders are listed. 

Justice Sharma also remarked: "For 6 months, he [the accused] will be in jail. Is he entitled to bail or not? This is too much."

Justice Bela stated that the orders will be set aside and will be remitted back for a fresh hearing on merits. She added: "Without assigning any reasons...He [the judge] does not decide the matter. He just says..."

Terming this as "unfortunate," Shivam said: "There are several matters...Just my request, since your Lordship is remitting the matter, and since it's my parent High Court, bail matters are not listed on...

Before he could complete, Justice Bela interjected and said: "Why such orders are passed?"

The Court listed the matter to be decided afresh on merits by the High Court on November 11. It also passed similar orders in another SLP where a similar bail order was passed by the same High Court judge on September 11.  

Court Can't Postpone Implementation Of Bail Order After Finding Accused Entitled To Bail: Supreme Court

Case Details: NANHAK MANJHI v. THE STATE OF BIHAR, SLP(Crl) No. 14784/2024; UPENDRA MANJHI v.  THE STATE OF BIHAR SLP(Crl) No. 14764/2024

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 845

Click Here To Read/Download Order (NANHAK MANJHI) 

Click Here To Read/Download Order (UPENDRA MANJHI)