SC Sets Aside Bail Condition Requiring Accused To Furnish Bail Bond After Completion 6 Months In Custody
The Supreme Court has set aside a condition imposed by the Patna High Court while granting bail in a case involving an offence under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act that bail bonds be furnished after completing six months in custody.
The Bench of Justice Surya Kant, Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held, “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…Consequently, the instant petition is allowed and paragraph 7 of the High Court order is set aside. The Trial Court is directed to release the petitioner on bail forthwith on furnishing bail bonds to its satisfaction.”
AOR Tom Joseph and Advocate Kumar Gaurav appeared for the Petitioner whereas Advocate Rishi K Awasthi and AOR Punit Vinay appeared for the Respondent.
A Special Leave Petition was filed by the Accused challenging the condition in the bail order granted by the Patna High Court that he shall furnish his bail bonds after the completion of six months in custody.
The Petitioner was accused in a case arising out of the offences under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act. The allegations were that around 231.6 litres of country-made and foreign liquor were recovered from three motorcycles. The petitioner was driving one of them. The petitioner had applied for bail, which was declined by the Trial Court. He then approached the High Court and vide impugned order, the High Court though directed him to be released on bail subject to furnishing bail bonds etc., but a further condition was imposed.
The Court further ordered, “In addition to the conditions imposed by the Trial Court, it is directed that: (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.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the paragraph concerned in the order granting bail to the Accused.
Cause Title: Vikash Kumar Gupta v. The State Of Bihar
Appearances:
Petitioner: AOR Tom Joseph and Advocate Kumar Gaurav
Respondent: AOR Punit Vinay, Advocates Rishi K Awasthi, Piyush Vatsa and Rahul Kumar Gupta.
