Supreme Court of India
Gajanan Dattatray Gore vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 July, 2025
1
REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 913
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3219/2025
(@Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.10749/2025)
GAJANAN DATTATRAY GORE Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
J.B. PARDIWALA, J.,
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from the order passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay dated 1-7-2025 below interim application
No.4524/2024 filed in Criminal Bail Application No.445/2024, by
which the interim application filed by the original complainant
(Respondent No.2 – herein) came to be allowed and the order of bail
passed by the High Court in favour of the appellant – herein dated
1-4-2024 came to be modified.
3. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be summarized as
under:-
4. The appellant – herein came to be arrested in connection with
Crime No.652 of 2023 dated 27-8-2023 registered with the Satara
City Police Station, State of Maharashtra for the offence
Signature Not Verified
punishable
Digitally signed by
VISHAL ANAND
Date: 2025.07.31
under Sections 406, 408, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506
11:48:02 IST
Reason:
read with 34 respectively of the Indian Penal Code (for short,
“IPC”).
2
5. The appellant – herein was arrested on 17-8-2023.
6. As the Trial Court declined to release the appellant on
regular bail, he went before the High Court and prayed for regular
bail by way of the Bail Application No.445/2024. The High Court
vide its order dated 1-4-2024 ordered release of the appellant –
herein on bail, subject to deposit of Rs.25,00,000/- (Twenty Five
Lakh only) in the Trial Court. The entire order passed by the High
Court dated 1-4-2024 reads thus:-
“1. Heard learned counsel Shri Kadam appearing for the
applicant, learned counsel Shri Gole appearing for the
Intervener and learned APP for the State.
2. Learned counsel Shri Gole appearing for the intervener and
learned APP vehemently opposed the application.
3. This is an application for bail in respect of the offence
punishable under Sections 406, 408, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504,
506, 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered on 27/08/2023 vide
C.R. No. 1-652 of 2023 with Satara City Police Station. The
applicant was arrested on 17/08/2023.
4. It is the allegation that the informant runs Satara
Advertising Company and I-Can Training Institute. I-Can
Training Institute is having its several branches at several
places in Maharashtra. Through the Advertising company, the
informant does market work like bulk messages, Whats- app
‘messages, creating a website, Facebook marketing, white call
marketing etc. The applicant was employed as a business
development manager for the purpose of both these institutes.
The informant was paying Rs.10,000/- to 30,000/- per month to
the applicant. The informant started a residential academy at
Talegaon Dabhade. The applicant was looking after this branch
as a business development manager. Basically, it is the
allegation that an amount of Rs.1,66,00,000/- was siphoned of
by the accused from the legitimate funds belonging to the
informant.
5. The affidavit-cum-undertaking dated 22/03/2024 has been
filed by the applicant voluntarily which is duly affirmed by
the applicant which reads thus:
“I, Mr. Gajanan Dattatray Gore, Age: 31 years, Occ:
Business, Residence at:154, Block, Somwar Peth, Near
Datta Mandir, Satara presently at Central Prison of
Kalamb, Dist: Kolhapur, do hereby state on solemn
affirmation as under:-
3
1) I say that, I undertake to deposit 25,00,000/-
(Twenty Five Lakhs Only) within 5 months Before this
Hon’ble Court for showing my bonafide Before this
Hon’ble Court.
2) I say and undertake that, I will not use the name of
I Can Institute.
3) I further say and undertake that, I will also not
use a logo of I Can Institute for my person as well as
business purpose.
Whatever stated hereinabove is true to my knowledge,
which I believe to be true and correct for which I sign
herein under.”
6. The statements made in the affidavit-cum-undertaking are
treated as an undertaking to this Court. Learned counsel for
the applicant on instructions submitted that the applicant is
willing to abide by the statements made in the affidavit. The
statements are accepted. It is expressly made clear by learned
counsel for the applicant on instructions of the applicant
that in the logo of “JAMAKA” which is used by the accused, the
words “ICAN TRAINING INSTITUTE PVT LTD” will not be used. The
statement is accepted. There are no criminal antecedents
reported against the applicant. The applicant was arrested on
17/08/2023. The trial is likely to take a long time to
conclude. Further custody will only be by way of a pre-trial
punishment in the facts and circumstance of the case. The
applicant will face the consequences post-trial if found
guilty. The applicant is in custody for more than 7 months
with no possibility of the trial concluding any time soon. The
investigation is complete. The charge-sheet has been filed.
The applicant can be enlarged on bail. Hence, the following
order :-
(a) The application is allowed.
(b) The applicant- Gajanan Dattatray Gore in connection
with C.R. No.1-652 of 2023 registered with Satara City
Police Station shall be released on bail on his furnish
ing P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties
in the like amount.
(c) The applicant is permitted to furnish cash bail
surety in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- for a period of
6 weeks in lieu of surety.
(d) The applicant shall attend the Investigating
Officer of Satara City Police Station once in three
months on every first Monday of the concerned month
commencing from May 2024 between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00
p.m.
(e) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly
make any inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
4
dissuade him from disclosing the facts to Court. or
any Police Officer. The applicant shall not tamper
with evidence.
(f) On being released on bail, the applicant shall
furnish his contact number and residential address to
the Investigating Officer and shall keep him updated,
in case there is any change.
(g) The applicant shall attend the trial regularly.
The applicant shall co-operate with the trial Court
and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments.
(h) The applicant shall abide by the statements made
in the affidavit.
(i) The amount of Rs.25 lakhs be deposited in the
trial Court instead of this Court which shall abide
by the final outcome of the trial Court’s order. It
is open for the trial Court to invest the amount in
any nationalised bank.
7. The application is disposed of.”
7. Thus, it appears on plain reading of the order, referred to
above, that the allegations against the appellant – herein are one
of misappropriation of an amount of Rs.1,60,00,000/- (One Crore and
Sixty Lakh only).
8. When the bail application was being heard by the High Court, a
statement was made forward on behalf of the appellant-herein, may
be his lawyer, who was appearing on instructions or otherwise that
the appellant is ready and willing to deposit Rs.25,00,000/- and
subject to such deposit, he may be released on regular bail.
9. An affidavit-cum-undertaking dated 22-3-2024 came to be filed
by the appellant – herein before the High Court. We find reference
of this affidavit in para 5 of the order, referred to above.
10. Taking advantage of the order, referred to above, the ap-
pellant got himself released on bail but failed to deposit the
5
amount of Rs.25,00,000/- as undertaken by him before the High Court
on oath.
11. In such circumstances, the Respondent No.2 – herein (original
complainant) preferred an interim application in the original bail
application seeking cancellation of the order of bail granted by
the High Court.
12. The High Court vide its impugned order dated 1-7-2025 directed
that the appellant shall surrender before the Court of Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Satara within a period of four weeks.
13. We deem it appropriate to incorporate the entire impugned or-
der passed by the High Court as under:-
“1. Heard Mr. Ganesh Gole, learned Advocate for the Applicant,
Mr. Shailesh Kharat, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 1, and
Mrs. Veera Shinde, learned APP for State.
2. Respondent No. 1 is the Accused in Crime No. 652 of 2023,
registered with the Satara City Police Station, Satara for the
offences punishable under section 406, 408, 420, 467, 468, 471,
504 & 506 of Indian Penal Code. Said crime is registered at the
instance of the Applicant (Complainant).
3. Prosecution case is that the Applicant runs Satara
Advertising Company and I-Can Training Institute, having
several of its branches in the State of Maharashtra. Respondent
No. 1 was employed as a business development manager, by the
Applicant. Respondent No.1 is alleged to have siphoned an
amount of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- from the funds belonging to the
Applicant.
4. Respondent No. 1 was arrested on 17.08.2023.
5. Bail Application No. 445 of 2024, filed by the Respondent
No. 1 was allowed by this Court on 01.04.2024. Respondent No. 1
was released on the following bail condition:
“(a) The application is allowed.
(b) The applicant- Gajanan Dattatray Gore in connection
with C.R. No.I-652 of 2023 registered with Satara City
police Station shall be released on bail on his furnishing
P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties in the
like amount.
6
(c) The applicant is permitted to furnish cash bail surety
in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- for a period of 6 weeks in lieu
of surety.
(d) The applicant shall attend the Investigating Officer
of Satara City Police Station once in three months on
every first Monday of the concerned month commencing from
May 2024 between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m.
(e) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make
any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from
disclosing the facts to Court or any Police Officer. The
applicant shall not tamper with evidence.
(f) On being released on bail, the applicant shall furnish
his contact number and residential address to the
Investigating Officer and shall keep him updated, in case
there is any change.
(g) The applicant shall attend the trial regularly. The
applicant shall co-operate with the trial Court and shall
not seek unnecessary adjournments.
(h) The applicant shall abide by the statements made in
the affidavit.
(i) The amount of Rs.25 lakhs be deposited in the trial
Court instead of this Court which shall abide by the final
outcome of the trial Court’s order. It is open for the
trial Court to invest the amount in any nationalized
bank.”
6. The prelude to the said bail conditions is found in
paragraphs- 5 and 6 of the said order 01.04.2024, which
paragraphs are transcribed herein below:
5. The affidavit-cum-undertaking dated 22/03/2024
has been filed by the applicant voluntarily which
is duly affirmed by the applicant which reads
thus:
“I, Mr. Gajanan Dattatray Gore, Age: 31 years,
Occ: Business, Residence at:154, Block, Somwar
Peth, Near Datta Mandir, Satara presently at
Central Prison of Kalamb, Dist: Kolhapur, do
hereby state on solemn affirmation as under:-
1) I say that, I undertake to deposit
25,00,000/- (Twenty Five Lakhs Only) within
5 months before this Hon’ble Court for
showing my bonafide before this Hon’ble
Court.
7
2) I say and undertake that, I will not use
the name of I CAN Institute.
3) I further say and undertake that, I
will also not use a logo of I CAN
Institute for my personal as well as
business purpose.
Whatever stated hereinabove is true to my
knowledge, which believe to be true and
correct for which I sign herein under.”
6. The statements made in the affidavit-cum- undertaking are
treated as an undertaking to this Court. Learned counsel for the
applicant on instructions submitted that the applicant is
willing to abide by the statements made in the affidavit. The
statements are accepted. It is expressly made clear by learned
counsel for the applicant on instructions of the applicant that
in the logo of “JAMAKA” which is used by the accused, the
words “ICAN TRAINING INSTITUTE PVT LTD” will not be used. The
statement is accepted. There are nо criminal antecedents
reported against the applicant. The applicant was arrested on
17/08/2023. The trial is likely to take a long time to conclude.
Further custody will only be by way of a pre-trial punishment in
the facts and circumstance of the case. The applicant will face
the consequences post-trial if found guilty. The applicant is in
custody for more than 7 months with no possibility of the trial
concluding any time soon. The investigation is complete. The
charge-sheet has been filed. The applicant can be enlarged on
bail. Hence, the following order:”
7. On 06.08.2024, Respondent No.1 filed Interim Application No.
3106 of 2024, seeking the following relief:-
“That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to relax the condition
No. (i) imposed by this Hon’ble Court while passing the
order dated 01.04.2024,”
8. Interim Application No. 3106 of 2024, was unconditionally
withdrawn by the Respondent No. 1, on 23.06.2025.
9. By the present Application, the Applicant has sought for
the following reliefs:
“а. This Hon’ble Court may kindly cancel the bail
granted by this Hon’ble Court in Criminal Bail
Application No. 445 of 2024, whereby this Hon’ble Court
was pleased to grant bail to the Respondent No. 1 vide
order dated 01.04.2024, and further be pleased to
direct the Respondent No. 2 to Immediately arrest
8Respondent No.1 and to take him in custody in
connection with the C.R. No. I-652/2023 dated
16.08.2023 registered with Satara City Police Station,
Satara.”
10. Mr. Gole, learned Advocate for the Applicant submits that
Respondent No. 1 while seeking bail had made representation to
this Court, by which he had voluntarily expressed his desire to
deposit the amount in Court, as more particularly mentioned and
stated in the undertaking dated 22.03.2024, supported with an
affidavit. He submits that the Respondent No. 1 had called upon
and persuaded this Court to consider the request for bail
solely on the basis of his representations and assurances made/
given in the undertaking i.e. his willingness to pay the
amount. He submits that by the said mode the Respondent No.1
had prevented this Court from dealing with the bail application
on merits. He submits that Respondent No. 1 has defaulted and
breached the solemn undertaking given by the Respondent No. 1
to this Court, thereby violating bail condition No. 6(i). He
relies on the grounds raised by the Applicant in paragraph
14(a) to (i) of the Application and prays for cancellation of
bail.
11. Mrs. Veera Shinde, learned APP for the State submits that
the Respondent No.1 had himself volunteered to deposit the
amount by submitting undertaking to this Court. She submits
that the application for bail was decided solely on the basis
of the offer to deposit as made by the Respondent No.1. She
submits that the Respondent No.1 having offered to deposit the
amount out of his own free will and after having taken benefit
of such representations, Respondent No.1 cannot be permitted to
resile from the undertaking. She submits that the undertaking
given by the Applicant is valid. She submits that Respondent
No. 1 having breached the undertaking, the bail is required to
be cancelled.
12. Mr. Kharat, learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 1
submits that the bail condition 6(i) imposed by this Court in
its order dated 01.04.2024 in Bail Application No. 445 of 2024
is onerous conditions. He submits that such condition while
granting bail is not tenable. In support of his submissions he
relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Ramesh Kumar v/s. State of NCT of Delhi and the decision of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Apurva Kirti Mehta
V/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr. He further relies on the
decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Biman
Chatterjee v/s. Sanchita Chatterjee & anr. to contend that non-
fulfillment of assurance of a compromise cannot be the basis of
canceling bail.
13. I have perused record with the assistance of the learned
Advocates for the parties.
14. Respondent No.1 by voluntarily offering deposit of amount,
while seeking indulgence of this Court to have his liberty
secured and restored, foreclosed consideration of his bail
application on merits. Respondent No.1 by his conduct persuaded
9
this Court not to go into the merits of the bail order dated
01.04.2024 passed in Bail Application No. 445 of 2024 clearly
indicates this Court being called upon by the Respondent No.1
to pass an order on his bail application, solely on the
representation of deposit of money as made in the undertaking
dated 22.03.2024. Respondent No.1 has derived benefit of the
Order dated 01.04.2024 and has secured his liberty.
15. Mr. Shailesh Kharat relies on the Judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar (supra) and Apurva
Kirti Mehta (supra) to submit that a criminal court, exercising
jurisdiction to grant bail is not expected to act as a recovery
agent to realise the dues of the complainant and financial
deposit as a condition for bail is impressible.
16. It is trite law that imposing of financial deposit as a
condition for bail is not permissible and that the process of
Criminal Law particularly, in matters of grant of bail are not
akin to money recovery proceedings.
17. Respondent No.1 as and by way of an after thought, is
attempting to renege by contending the said bail condition to
deposit amount, to be onerous. Such practice has been
deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kundan
Singh vs. The Superintendent of CGST and Central Excise. In
paras 8, 9, 10 & 11 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as
under:-
“8. 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
no doubt depend on the facts and circumstances of the
individual case. What is troubling however, is when
attempts are made to foreclose consideration of bail
application on merits by voluntarily offering deposits of
amounts and thereafter reneging on it by stating that a
counsel had no authority and/or that the condition is
onerous.
9. We are not able to countenance this practice. Even in
this case the argument is that the counsel has no
authority to offer monetary deposit, when in the
modification application no such averment was made and
all that was averred was that the amount of
Rs.50,00,000/-, as directed, be also deferred to the
point after the release of the petitioner.
10. We strongly deprecate this practice. 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 may not have granted relief to the
petitioner. Today the petitioner is approbating and
reprobating. We are conscious of his rights under Article
21 of the Constitution of India, but we have to be
equally conscious of the sanctity of the judicial process
and cannot allow parties to play ducks and drakes with
10the Court. In this scenario, the only conclusion possible
is that both, the original bail order of 08.05.2025 and
the order of modification dated 14.05.2025 granting final
relief, will have to be set aside and the matter be
remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration on
merits uninfluenced by any of the observations of this
Court.
11. The situation now is that the petitioner taking
advantage of the order of the High Court has secured his
release. Ordinarily the consequence would have been to put
the petitioner back in jail. However, considering the
averments made in the modification application in this case,
we are inclined to grant a limited interim protection from
surrendering.”
18. Mr. Kharat, submits that the decision in the case of Kundan
Singh (supra) would not apply to the case of the Respondent No.
1. Said contention is premised on the ground that the bail
condition of making deposit as a condition of bail is onerous.
I am unable to accept the said contention as it was the
Respondent No.1 who out of his own free will volunteered, by
way of an undertaking to deposit the amount. Undertaking in the
present case indicates the Respondent No.1 rest content with
the deposit of the amount. Interim Application No. 3106 of
2024, filed by the Respondent No.1 seeking relaxation of bail
condition No. 6 (i) is dismissed as withdrawn. In the peculiar
facts and circumstances of this case, it is not open to the
Respondent No.1 to contend that the bail condition in para 6
(i) to be onerous.
19. Mr. Kharat, submits that the order dated 01.04.2024, in
addition to the undertaking dated 22.03.2024, considers the
bail on merits. Reliance is placed on para 6 of the order to
submit that this Court while granting bail had made reference
to the Respondent No. 1 not having criminal antecedents and the
trial is likely to take some time to conclude. I am again
unable to accept the said contention of the Respondent No. 1 as
the order dated 01.04.2024 clearly gives an impression that the
Respondent No. 1 with the intent to dissuade this Court from
considering the merits made the above said offer to deposit
amount in this court. Respondent No.1 has taken the Court for
granted by securing his liberty on the basis of the undertaking
dated 22.03.2024. Respondent No. 1 is attempting to approbate
and reprobate. Facts of instant case are similar to the facts
in the case of Kundan Singh (Supra) as such observations of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 10 are squarely applicable to the
case in hand. Case of the Respondent No. 1 as now contended is
nothing but reneging voluntarily offering deposits. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Kundan Singh (supra) has
deprecated such practice.
20. Mr. Kharat, relied on the case of Biman Chatterjee (supra)
to submit that now fulfillment of the terms of compromise
cannot be basis of granting or cancelling the bail. He places
reliance on the paragraph No.7 of the said decision. Case in
Biman Chatterjee (supra) was a proposed settlement between a
11
couple having matrimonial discord. Bail granted to the Accused
in the said crime was cancelled on the ground that the Accused
was not adhering to the settlement terms. It is in this context
that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph-7 has made the
observations as under:
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we
are of the opinion that the High Court was not justified
in cancelling the bail on the ground that the appellant
had violated the terms of the compromise. Though in the
original order granting bail there is a reference to an
agreement of the parties to have a talk of compromise
through the media of well wishers, there is no submission
made to the court that there will be a compromise or that
the appellant would take back his wife. Be that as it
may, in our opinion, the courts below could not have
cancelled the bail solely on the ground that the
appellant had failed to keep up his promise made to the
court. Here we hasten to observe first of all from the
material on record, we do not find that there was any
compromise arrived at between the parties at all, hence,
question of fulfilling the terms of such compromise does
not arise. That apart non-fulfilment of the terms of the
compromise cannot be the basis of granting or cancelling
a bail. The grant of bail under the Criminal Procedure
Code is governed by the provision of Chapter XXXIII of
the Code and the provision therein does not contemplate
either granting of a bail on the basis of an assurance of
a compromise or cancellation of a bail for violation of
the terms of such compromise. What the court has to bear
in mind while granting bail is what is provided for in
Section 437 of the said Code. In our opinion, having
granted the bail under the said provision of law, it is
not open to the trial court or the High Court to cancel
the same on a ground alien to the grounds mentioned for
cancellation of bail in the said provision of law.
21. The Respondent No. 1 though having withdrawn his
Application seeking relaxation of the said bail condition No.
6(i), has not come forward to deposit the amount even during
the course of hearing of this Application. Respondent No. 1
having breached / violated bail condition no. 6(i) of the order
dated 01.04.2024, this Court is left with no other option but
to exercise jurisdiction under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) to cancel the
bail. Bail granted to the Respondent No. 1 on 01.04.2024 stands
cancelled.
22. Respondent No. 1 was released pursuant to the order dated
01.04.2024. Bail being cancelled, the Respondent No. 1 is now
required to surrender. Mr. Kharat, on instructions from the
Respondent No. 1 prays time to surrender. He prays for 8 weeks
time to surrender.
23. Considering that the Respondent No.1 was on bail since
01.04.2024, I find it appropriate to grant 4 weeks time, to the
Respondent No.1 to surrender before the learned Court of
12
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Satara. Respondent No.1 to
surrender before the said Court on or before 31 July, 2025,
subject to the Respondent No. 1 furnishing P.R. bond in the sum
of Rs. 50,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount to
the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Satara, within 10 days from today. In the event, P.R.
bond and sureties are not furnished within the said period,
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class to act in accordance
with law.
24. Interim Application No. 4524 of 2024 is allowed in the
above terms.”
14. Heard Mr. A.M. Bojor Barua, the learned counsel appearing for
the appellant and Mr. Prashant S. Kenjale, the learned counsel
appearing for the Respondent No.2 – complainant.
15. We have noticed over a period of time that orders of regular
bail and anticipatory bail are being passed by different High
Courts subject to deposit of some amount.
16. We have come across cases like the one in hand where accused
persons have gone to the extent of filing affidavits in the form of
undertaking that they would deposit a particular amount within a
particular period and then conveniently resile from such
undertakings saying it is an onerous condition.
17. In some cases, perhaps the accused may abide by such
undertaking, but our experience so far has been that in many cases
the accused later would not abide and flout the undertaking. In
many cases it would be argued on behalf of the accused that he had
never made such a statement and the court on its own had recorded
in the order that the accused is ready and willing to deposit a
particular amount. At times the entire blame is thrown on the
lawyer in making such statement for the purpose of obtaining order
of bail or anticipatory bail as the case may be. In such
13
circumstances, the concerned court would be left with no other
option but to cancel the bail either at the instance of the State
or the original complainant.
18. The case in hand is one in which the appellant on his own free
will and volition filed an affidavit in the form of an undertaking
before the High Court that he would deposit an amount of
Rs.25,00,000/- but ultimately resiled to do so and the High Court
had to cancel the bail. It was too much for the lawyer of the
appellant to argue before the High Court that asking his client to
deposit Rs. 25,00,000/- was unreasonable. It reflects on the
professional ethics.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. This practice has to be stopped. Litigants are taking the
courts for a ride and thereby undermining the dignity and honor of
the court.
22. We hope and trust that the High Courts as well as the Trial
Courts across the country do not commit the same mistake again.
14
23. In the case in hand, so far as the plea for regular bail is
concerned, we are not inclined to look into. 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.
24. 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.
25. This appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
26. The Registry is directed to circulate one copy each of this
order to all the High Courts at the earliest.
27. Once the appellant surrenders and is taken in judicial
custody, it shall be open for him to file a fresh regular bail
application before the Court concerned and such bail application
shall be decided strictly on its own merits and in accordance with
law.
15
28. We impose cost of Rs.50,000/- for gross abuse of the process
of law and taking the High Court as well as this Court for a ride.
This amount shall be deposited within a period of one week from
today before the Supreme Court Mediation Centre and the compliance
be reported.
…………………………………………J
(J.B. PARDIWALA)
…………………………………………J
(R. MAHADEVAN)
NEW DELHI
28TH JULY, 2025.