New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said courts cannot impose a condition on the accused to furnish bail bonds after six months of the passing of the bail order.
A bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma said if the court was satisfied on merits, it should either grant bail or reject it.
On October 24, the apex court dealt with a petition filed by a man who had challenged an order of the Patna High Court, directing him to furnish bail bonds after six months in a case against him under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act.
The man was, therefore, directed to be released by the trial court on bail upon furnishing bonds of Rs 10,000 with two sureties of the like amount.
While dealing with his plea, the top court noted, “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.”
It said no reasons were assigned as to why the implementation of 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,” the bench said.
The top court consequently set aside the high court order and directed the petitioner's plea to be restored on the file of the high court while listing it before the court concerned on November 11 for deciding it afresh on merits.
The case pertains to the alleged recovery of 40 litre of country-made liquor from the petitioner's vehicle.
