Supreme Court Decries Tactic Of Obtaining Bail By Offering Money Deposit & Later Challenging Condition As Onerous

The Supreme Court today strongly deprecated the practice of parties getting anticipatory/regular bail orders from courts after voluntarily offering to deposit substantial amounts but later going back on the statements and approaching higher courts claiming that the condition imposed while granting bail was onerous or the concerned counsel did not have authority to make the statement."We strongly deprecate this practice...we have to be conscious of the sanctity of judicial process. We cannot allow parties to play tucks and tricks with the Court...we cannot permit parties to take advantage of a device resorted by them to secure orders of release", observed a bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh.The Court noted that the practice of parties raising such claims before the Supreme Court was becoming "commonplace" and resulted in foreclosure of consideration of cases by High Courts on merits."There cannot be any dispute that excessive bail is no bail and onerous conditions ought not to be imposed while bail is granted. As to what is an onerous condition would depend on the facts and circumstances of the individual case. What is troubling is when attempts are made to foreclose consideration of bail applications on merits by voluntarily offering deposits of amounts and thereafter reneging on it by stating that the counsel had no authority or the condition is onerous. We are not able to countenance this practice."Delineating the practice adopted by parties, the bench recorded: "When parties move applications for anticipatory/regular bail, voluntarily offer is made by their counsel that they would deposit substantial amounts to show the bonafide and secure their liberty. Thereafter what happens is, the Courts hearing the bail applications are foreclosed from considering the merits of the matter and orders are made recording submission of counsel about willingness to deposit amounts and orders for anticipatory/regular bail are granted. Thereafter, grievance is made before higher Court that the condition imposed for bail is onerous and illegal..."The Court was dealing with the bail case of an accused under the CGST Act, where allegations pertained to tax evasion to the extent of Rs.13.7 crores. He was arrested on 27 March 2025.When the petitioner's bail plea came before the Madras High Court, his counsel made a statement that the petitioner had already deposited Rs.2.8 crores and was willing to deposit a further sum of Rs.2.5 crores, without prejudice to his contentions. Considering the submissions, the High Court, with no further discussion, granted bail to the petitioner, with a direction to deposit Rs.2.5 crores (release being subject to deposit of Rs.50 lakhs).Subsequently, the High Court modified its order and gave liberty to the petitioner to deposit the entire amount of Rs. 2.5 crores after his release. On his failure to do so, the bail application was to be treated as dismissed. Challenging this order, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court.Senior Advocate V Chidambaresh, for the petitioner, argued that onerous conditions cannot be imposed by Courts while granting bail. He also contended that the counsel representing the petitioner before the High Court did not have authority to offer deposit of amount.In response, the Court noted that no averment regarding counsel not being authorized to offer voluntary deposit was made in the petitioner's modification application. "If the offer for monetary deposit had not been made at the outset, the High Court may have considered the case on merits and may have granted or not granted relief to the petitioner. Today, the petitioner is approbating and reprobating. We are conscious of his rights under Article 21, but we have to be equally conscious of the sanctity of the judicial process", the bench said.Initially, it set aside the orders of the High Court, directed the petitioner to surrender before the Trial Court within 1 week and remanded the matter to the High Court for consideration on merits. However, subsequently, considering the averments made in the modification application (regarding the petitioner's wife being pregnant and his having responsibility of his aged father), the Court was inclined to maintain the order for release as an interim measure.Appearance: Senior Advocate V Chidambaresh and AoR Aswathi MK (for petitioner)Case Title: KUNDAN SINGH Versus THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE, SLP(Crl) No. 9111/2025Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 686Click Here To Read/Download OrderRelated - Don't Grant Bail In Private Cheating Cases Merely Because Accused Undertook To Deposit Money : Supreme Court Reminds Courts“How Can We Start Selling Bail Like This": Supreme Court Says Onerous Bail Conditions Must Not Be Imposed Ordinarily

Supreme Court Decries Tactic Of Obtaining Bail By Offering Money Deposit & Later Challenging Condition As Onerous

Debby Jain

Tags