The Supreme Court has ruled that courts cannot require an accused person to furnish bail bonds six months after a bail order is issued.

A bench comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma clarified that once a court has evaluated the merits of the case, it must either grant or deny bail without imposing extended timelines for furnishing bail bonds.

This decision arose on October 24, in response to a petition by a man challenging the Patna High Court's order, which had directed him to furnish bail bonds six months after his bail was granted under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act.

The man was directed to be released by the trial court on bail upon furnishing bonds of ₹ 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 the 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.