Grant Of Bail Should Not Be Subject To Deposit Of Money : Supreme Court Reiterates

The Supreme Court recently reiterated that when Courts grant regular or anticipatory bail, it should not be subject to the deposit of any amount. In this case, the Court set aside the conditional bail orders passed by the Jharkhand High Court and ordered that, in the event of arrest, the accused persons shall be released on bail. It also asked the Registry to forward a copy of the order to the place before the Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court. 

 As per the brief facts, the two accused persons, father and son, were denied anticipatory bail by the High Court in a cheating case. The complaint alleged that the accused persons failed to make a payment of Rs. 9,00,000 after purchasing craft papers from him. A first information report was lodged, and anticipating arrest, the accused persons applied to the Sessions Court for bail but were denied. Pursuant to which, they approached the High Court, which passed two orders directing them to file a supplementary affidavit showing that a payment of Rs. 9,12,926.84 has been made to the complainant. Subsequently, the accused persons sought time, and the High Court passed another order granting them time.

In both orders, dated January 13, 2025, and November 14, 2025, the High Court observed that if the affidavit showing payment is not filed, the anticipatory bail application will be dismissed without further reference.

Both orders were challenged before a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan. At the outset, the Court remarked that the High Court passed "unusual orders", being ignorant of this Court's judgment in Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. State of Maharashtra(2025), in which  a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held that bail applications must be adjudicated on merits and not on assurance of the accused.

The bench noted with disappointment that High Courts continue to pass such bail orders despite a clear judgment of the Supreme Court.

"It is very unfortunate that despite this Court saying in so many words that grant of regular bail or the anticipatory bail should not be subject to deposit of any amount, the High Court has said that the petitioners should deposit the balance amount of Rs.9,12,926.84. In our Judgment, referred to above, we made ourselves very clear that if a case for grant of bail or anticipatory bail is made out, then the Court should proceed to pass an appropriate order and if not made out, the Court may decline, however, Court should not pass a conditional order of deposit of a particular amount and then exercise its discretion."

The Court ordered them to be released on bail in the event of arrest and subject to conditions imposed by the investigating officer.

Headnote

Anticipatory Bail – Conditional Orders for Deposit: The Supreme Court criticized the Jharkhand High Court for making the grant of anticipatory bail contingent upon the deposit of a specific sum – Noted that High Court had directed the petitioners to file a supplementary affidavit showing payment of Rs. 9,12,926.84/- to the complainant, failing which the bail application would stand dismissed - Held, that the grant of regular or anticipatory bail should not be subject to the deposit of any amount - If a case for bail is made out, the court should pass an appropriate order; if not, it may decline - the court should not pass a conditional order for deposit and then exercise its discretion. [Relied on: Gajanan Dattatray Gore vs. State of Maharashtra & Another [(2025) SCC Online 1571; Paras 8 - 10]

Case Details: PRANTIK KUMAR & ANR v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.|SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) Diary No.4297/2026

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 131

Click Here To Read Order

Appearances: For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Pai, Adv. Ms. Avantika Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Parijat Chandan, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Gupta, Adv. Mr. Nitesh Ranjan, AOR