Patna High Court
Anil Kumar Gupta @ Anil Kumar SaoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The six‑month condition imposed on bail is ultra vires and is set aside; bail is granted with reasonable conditions.
Summary
Anil Kumar Gupta was granted bail by the District and Additional Sessions Judge, Barh, Patna, with a condition that the bail bond would be accepted only if the prosecution completed its evidence within six months of charge framing. The petitioner challenged this condition, arguing it contravened established judicial pronouncements and was untenable. The Patna High Court examined the validity of such a condition under Section 437(3) and 439(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code, citing Supreme Court decisions that bail conditions must not be so strict as to render bail illusory. The Court held that the six‑month condition was arbitrary, exceeded the trial court's jurisdiction, and effectively nullified the bail order. Consequently, the condition was set aside and the petitioner was released on bail with standard conditions regarding court appearance and non‑interference with witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether a condition linking bail to the closure of prosecution evidence within six months of charge framing is permissible under Section 437(3) CrPC.
- Whether such a condition is arbitrary, onerous, and contrary to the principle that bail conditions must not render bail illusory.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 437(3), 439(1)(a)
Subjects
- bail
- bail conditions
- Section 437 CrPC
- Section 439 CrPC
- arbitrary condition
- criminal procedure
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85451 of 2025
In
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75527 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-320 Year-2024 Thana- SALIMPUR District- Patna
======================================================
Anil Kumar Gupta @ Anil Kumar Sao S/o Late Dukhit Saw R/o Village -
Ram Nagar, P.S - Salimpur, District - Patna (Bihar) Presently R/o Village -
Katauna, P.S - Khushrupur, District - Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Aman Vishal, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh.1, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 20-01-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. By the present application, the petitioner has
challenged the conditions imposed upon the petitioner wherein
while granting bail the learned Court of District and Additional
Sessions Judge-Ist Barh, Patna has stated that the bail bond shall
be accepted only if the prosecution evidence is closed within six
months from the date of framing of charge. It has been
submitted that the said condition is in teeth of various judicial
pronouncements and is thus bad in law.
3. In view of the aforesaid, it has been prayed that the
condition imposed by the learned Trial Court may be set aside
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85451 of 2025(3) dt.20-01-2026
2/8
and any other condition may be imposed.
4. Learned APP for the State submitted that the
learned Trial Court is empowered enough to impose conditions
and only in order to ensure the appearance of the petitioner such
a condition was imposed which was well within the jurisdiction
of the court and there is no illegality in the same.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case,
it has been observed that the learned Trial Court after dealing
with the entire facts and after referring to various paragraphs of
the case diary, has ultimately came to the finding that the
petitioner and one another deserve to be released on bail. It is
also evident that having granted bail, a separate condition was
imposed wherein it has been stated that the bail bonds shall be
accepted only if the prosecution evidences is not completed
within six months of the framing of charge.
6. In these similar circumstances, the Honorable
Supreme Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 has held
that “ conditions for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict as
to be incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail
illusory.”
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85451 of 2025(3) dt.20-01-2026
3/8
7. In the present case, it would be evident that despite
bail being granted to the petitioners, they won’t be released
unless the end of six months from the date of framing of charge.
Imposing such condition, to the understanding of this Court,
amounts to rejection of the bail order as the petitioner despite
being granted bail will not be released for the next six months
merely because the prosecution witness is not closed.
8. At this juncture, it is apt to refer to the judgment
delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parvez
Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharashtra reported in
(2020) 10 SCC 77 has held in paragraph nos. 14 and 15 which
is extracted hereinbelow:
‘14. The language of Section 437(3)
CrPC which uses the expression “any condition …
otherwise in the interest of justice” has been
construed in several decisions of this Court.
Though the competent court is empowered to
exercise its discretion to impose “any condition”
for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and
439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to
be guided by the need to facilitate the
administration of justice, secure the presence of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85451 of 2025(3) dt.20-01-2026
4/8
accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is
not misused to impede the investigation, overawe
the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice.
Several decisions of this Court have dwelt on the
nature of the conditions which can legitimately be
imposed both in the context of bail and anticipatory
bail.
15. In Kunal Kumar Tiwari v. State of
Bihar [Kunal Kumar Tiwari v. State of Bihar,
(2018) 16 SCC 74 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 727] , the
appellant who was alleged to have committed
offences under Sections 498-A, 341, 323, 379 and
506, read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was denied
[Kunal Kumar Tiwari v. State of Bihar, 2017 SCC
OnLine Pat 2077] , [Kunal Kumar Tiwari v. State
of Bihar, 2017 SCC OnLine Pat 2076] anticipatory
bail by the High Court. However, the High Court
directed that if the appellant was willing to treat his
wife with dignity and care but she refuses to live
with him or both parties prefer to obtain a divorce
by mutual consent, the court below would release
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85451 of 2025(3) dt.20-01-2026
5/8
the appellant on provisional bail. The trial court
was permitted to confirm the provisional bail after
one year and was directed to monitor the
relationship between the parties, who would appear
before it every three months. This Court, while
holding that the conditions imposed by the High
Court on grant of bail were onerous and arbitrary,
observed : (Kunal Kumar Tiwari case [Kunal
Kumar Tiwari v. State of Bihar, (2018) 16 SCC 74 :
(2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 727] , SCC p. 78, paras 9-11)
“9. … clause (c) of Section 437(3)
allows courts to impose such conditions in
the interest of justice. We are aware that
palpably such wordings are capable of
accepting broader meaning. But such
conditions cannot be arbitrary, fanciful or
extend beyond the ends of the provision. The
phrase “interest of justice” as used under the
clause (c) of Section 437(3) means “good
administration of justice” or “advancing the
trial process” and inclusion of broader
meaning should be shunned because of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85451 of 2025(3) dt.20-01-2026
6/8
purposive interpretation.
10. … from the perusal of the
impugned order it is clear that the court
exceeded its jurisdiction in imposing such
arbitrary conditions. Some of the conditions
imposed are highly onerous and are absurd.
Such onerous anticipatory bail conditions are
alien and cannot be sustained in the eye of
the law. The conditions imposed appear to
have no nexus with the good administration
of justice or advancing the trial process,
rather it is an overzealous exercise in utter
disregard to the very purpose of the criminal
justice system.
11. In view of the above, the
impugned order [Kunal Kumar Tiwari v.
State of Bihar, 2017 SCC OnLine Pat 2077] ,
[Kunal Kumar Tiwari v. State of Bihar, 2017
SCC OnLine Pat 2076] passed by the High
Court is set aside and the interim protection
granted to the petitioner by this Court
[Kunal Kumar Tiwari v. State of Bihar,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85451 of 2025(3) dt.20-01-2026
7/8
(2018) 16 SCC 74, 78 (footnote 3)] … is
made absolute.”
9. In view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements,
though the impugned order dated 28.02.2025 grants bail to the
petitioner, but with such a condition that they cannot be released
with immediate effect, the same amounts to plucking feathers
prior to releasing a bird and literally rendering the order
granting bail otiose.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussions made
hereinabove, the condition imposed in the order dated
28.02.2025 passed in B.P. No. 61 of 2025 and 87 of 2025,
passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-Ist
Barh, Patna is set aside and the petitioner is directed to be
released on bail with the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall remain physically present in
the Court on each date of the trial.
(ii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates, or
in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of
the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the
Court concerned.
(iii) The petitioner shall not influence the
prosecution witnesses and if it is found and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85451 of 2025(3) dt.20-01-2026
8/8
reported otherwise, the prosecution shall be at
liberty to file necessary application for cancellation
of bail.
11. The present application stands allowed with the
directions aforementioned.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
aditya/-
U
Checking your session…