The Supreme Court has ruled that courts cannot require an accused person to provide bail bonds after a 6-month period following the issuance of a bail order.
A bench comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma stated that if a court finds sufficient merit in a case, it should either grant bail or deny it outright.
On October 24, the apex court reviewed a petition from a man challenging a directive from the Patna High Court, which mandated that he furnish bail bonds after 6 months. This order was issued in connection with a case against him under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act.
The trial court had previously granted him bail, contingent upon the provision of bonds worth ₹10,000 along with two sureties of the same amount.
In its assessment, the Supreme Court observed, “This is one of the few orders we have come across in the last few days, where the high court, without addressing the merits of the case, granted bail to the petitioner with the condition that he must furnish bail bonds after 6 months.” The court also noted the lack of explanation for the six-month delay in implementing the bail order.
The bench firmly stated, “In our opinion, no such condition could be imposed for the grant of bail to a person/accused.” As a result, the Supreme Court overturned the high court’s ruling and instructed that the petitioner’s case be reinstated in the high court, which will review it on November 11, focusing on its merits.
The case involves the alleged seizure of 40 liters of country-made liquor from the petitioner’s vehicle, prompting the legal proceedings.
