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 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.”

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 accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the cou