Bail Shouldn't Be Granted Solely Based On Any Undertaking Given By Accused : Supreme Court To High Courts & Trial Courts

The Supreme Court recently disapproved of an order granting bail based on the accused's undertaking to deposit ₹25 lakhs, emphasizing that bail should be granted based on the case's merit, not on the assurances given by the accused.The Court passed a general direction to the High Courts and Trial Courts to decide the plea for regular bail or anticipatory bail strictly on the merits of the case, rather than exercising their discretion to allow bail based an undertaking by the applicant or their family member to deposit a particular amount."By this order, we make it clear and that too in the form of directions that henceforth no Trial Court or any of the High Courts shall pass any order of grant of regular bail or anticipatory bail on any undertaking that the accused might be ready to furnish for the purpose of obtaining appropriate reliefs."“The High Courts as well as the Trial Courts shall decide the plea for regular bail or anticipatory bail strictly on the merits of the case. The High Courts and the Trial Courts shall not exercise their discretion in this regard on any undertaking or any statement that the accused may be ready and willing to make.”, the Court said.The Court directed the Registry to circulate one copy each of this order to all the High Courts at the earliest.The bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan made this direction while deciding an appeal that arose from a case involving the misappropriation of ₹1.6 crore, where the appellant, Gajanan Dattatray Gore, had secured bail by filing an affidavit promising to deposit part of the disputed amount. Post-release, however, he relented to make the payment, prompting the High Court to revoke his bail.Aggrieved by the High Court's decision to cancel his bail, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court.The order written by Justice Pardiwala, however, upheld the High Court's cancellation of the bail, but strongly criticized the practice of granting bail subject to monetary deposits, calling it "onerous" and impermissible.“This practice has to be stopped. Litigants are taking the courts for a ride and thereby undermining the dignity and honor of the court…We hope and trust that the High Courts as well as the Trial Courts across the country do not commit the same mistake again.”, the Court added.The Court also expressed anguish over the appellant's contradictory conduct, imposing a cost of ₹50,000 for attempting to mislead the judiciary, having initially agreed to deposit the amount for bail but later backing out, claiming the condition was onerous. Additionally, the Court questioned the High Court's decision to release the appellant without verifying whether the payment condition had been fulfilled.“The appellant has made a mockery of justice. He could be said to have abused the process of law. If at all the High Court wanted to release the appellant on bail, it should have first asked him to deposit the amount within a particular period of time and upon such deposit the appellant could have been released.”, the court said.Cautioning the High Courts, the Court observed.“Be that as it may, now we have made ourselves very clear that there shall not be a single order that the High Courts and the Trial Courts shall pass for grant of regular bail or anticipatory bail on the basis of any accused or his/her family members giving an undertaking to deposit a particular amount. The plea shall be decided strictly on merits in accordance with law. If the case is made out on merits the court may exercise its discretion and if no case is made out on merits the court shall reject the plea for regular bail or anticipatory bail as the case may be. However, in any circumstances the High Courts or trial courts shall not pass a conditional order of regular bail or anticipatory bail.”, the Court ordered.Cause Title: GAJANAN DATTATRAY GORE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 756Click here to read/download the orderAppearance: Mr. A.M. Bojor Barua, Adv. for the appellant Mr. Prashant S. Kenjale, Adv. for the Respondent No.2 – complainant.Related - Supreme Court Decries Tactic Of Obtaining Bail By Offering Money Deposit & Later Challenging Condition As Onerous

Bail Shouldn't Be Granted Solely Based On Any Undertaking Given By Accused : Supreme Court To High Courts & Trial Courts

Yash Mittal

Tags