Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court's Condition of Delayed Bail Bond Submission

Legal Article by - MEGHA AGARWAL (This Article was written by her during her Internship)

Case: VIKASH KUMAR GUPTA VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR

Introduction to News

The Supreme Court reversed a controversial release term set by the Patna HC, which necessitated an accused individual to remain 6 months until submitting bail bonds. The SC emphasized that the preliminary procedure must not act as a penalty, thus, canceling the High Court's condition which delayed the accused’s release for 6 months after being granted bail.

The Case

The petition in question had been accused under section Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act. The accused had been alleged regarding possessing unlawful alcohol when approximately 231.6 liters of country-made and foreign alcohol were identified in 3 motorbikes one of which the accused nad been supposedly riding. After being detained on June 14th, 2024, the petitioner applied for bail from the trial court but had been rejected.

The petitioner eventually asked for relief from the Patna Hc, which granted his bail request with the term regarding offering bail bonds as per regular procedure. Nonetheless, the HC imposed a further term specifying that the accused would exclusively offer these bonds after they had served 6 months in custody, eventually delaying the person's release.

The Judgment

The petitioner, perceiving unfairly treated due to this circumstance, pursued remedy through the supreme court. A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Ujjal Bhuyan reviewed the issue and decided that the High Court had no reasonable grounds for enforcing such a constraining condition. The SC ruled the High Court's 6 month hold-up regarding granting bail to be groundless and canceled the verdict.

the SC highlighted that release needs not to be used as punishment, reaffirming the essential lawful concept that preliminary steps are not intended to penalize. As a consequence, the SC in order to release the petitioner immediately when the bail bonds were submitted.

Contentions

The petitioner asserted that the Patna HC's further stipulation regarding delaying release for 6 months was considered unjust and unreasonable. The petitioner's advocate emphasized that the event was a violation of the petitioner's rights due to the fact that it indicated extending imprisonment beyond what was necessary for preliminary custody. The petitioner claimed that his release was postponed wrongly even though the release order was in the petitioner's favor.

The state contended that the strict requirements enforced through the HC were reasonable because of the petitioner's previous background according to the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, as stated through the legal counsel.

During the hearing, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan remarked orally, “The process itself should not become punishment,” signaling the court's position that bail conditions should not be unduly harsh or prolonged.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's verdict countering the Patna HC's 6-month imprisonment requirement validates the belief that pre-hearing detention must not be a means of punishment. The court not merely ordered the petitioner's immediate release after delivery bail bonds but also set further conditions to ensure legal observance. The petitioner should appear during the court hearings, as well as further infringement of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act shall be treated as an infringement of bail.

Legal Soch Foundation offer mentorship sessions, CV and Cover Letter making, and email management services specifically designed for law students. To more more, contact 8797914487.