Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Condition That Accused Who Got Bail Can Furnish Bail Bonds Only After Spending 6 Months In Custody

Reiterating that the pre-trial process itself shall not become punishment, the Supreme Court yesterday set aside a bail condition imposed by the Patna High Court to the effect that the bail bonds be furnished by the accused after completion of 6 months in custody from the date of the order. The condition in effect put on hold the implementation of the bail order for six months.

"We see no valid reason for the High Court to impose the condition as contained in paragraph 7 of the impugned order whereby the bail bonds will have to be furnished by the petitioner after completion of six months in custody from the date of the High Court order", said the bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan.

Briefly put, the petitioner was named as an accused in an FIR lodged under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act. The allegations were that around 231.6 liters of country-made and foreign liquor was recovered from three motorcycles and he was driving one of them.

After his arrest on 14 June, 2024, the petitioner applied for bail, which was declined by the Trial Court. He then approached the High Court. Vide impugned order, the High Court directed him to be released on bail (subject to furnishing bail bonds etc.), but imposed a further condition that “the petitioner shall furnish his bail bonds after completion of six months in custody from today”.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court.

Allowing his petition, the top Court set aside the impugned condition and directed the trial Court to release the petitioner forthwith on furnishing of bail bonds. In addition to the bail conditions imposed on the petitioner, it was directed:

"(i) The petitioner shall remain present in Court on each and every date of hearing.

(ii) Since the petitioner has a track record of his involvement in cases under the Excise Act, it is directed that in case the petitioner is found involved in such like cases in future, it shall be taken as a misuse of the concession of bail."

Notably, during the hearing, Justice Bhuyan orally remarked that "the process itself should not become punishment".

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

Case Title: VIKASH KUMAR GUPTA VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).11952/2024

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 688

Click here to read the order