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

The Supreme Court on Monday (September 2) ruled that once a court concludes that an accused is entitled to bail, it cannot delay the implementation of the bail order, as doing so may violate the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih deleted the condition imposed by Patna High Court while granting bail to an accused that the bail order will be executed after six months. The HC in the impugned judgment did not provide any reason for imposing such a condition.

“The impugned judgement proceeds on the footing that the appellant is entitled to bail and in fact the impugned order grants bail. However, it is observed in paragraph 9 that the order granting bail be implemented after 6 months. Once court comes to the conclusion that an accused is entitled to bail, the court cannot postpone the grant of bail. If after holding that an accused is entitled to bail, the courts start delaying the order granting bail it may amount to violation of rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the constitution of India,” the Court held.

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal and deleted the words “but after 6 months from today” from paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment. The bench also noted that the appellant, Jitendra Paswan, had already been released on interim bail under its earlier orders and directed that this interim bail would continue until the completion of the trial.

Previously, on July 12, the Supreme Court expressed concerns over the "strange" order of the Patna HC. Justice Abhay Oka had remarked, “What kind of order is this? Some courts are granting bail for six months or one year. Now, this is one more type. Holds that he is entitled to bail but he should be released after six months.”

The appellant is implicated in a case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 326, 307, and 302 of the IPC. The FIR was lodged against 19 named accused, including Paswan, for allegedly attacking the informant and his family when they protested against the accused plowing their field. Specifically, it is alleged that on the instigation of Paswan, the other accused assaulted the informant's family.

The HC granted bail to Paswan, to be effective six months from the order date, with a bail bond of Rs. 30,000 and two sureties. It also imposed several conditions, including regular court appearances, monthly attendance at the police station, and prohibitions against tampering with evidence or committing further offenses.

Case no. – Crl.A. No. 3648/2024; Diary No. 27639 / 2024

Case Title – Jitendra Paswan Satya Mitra v. State of Bihar