The Supreme Court of India in Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2025 INSC 913) delivered a resounding message to courts and litigants alike—undertakings, especially monetary ones, cannot become a gateway to liberty in bail matters.
The Supreme Court’s verdict marks a critical intervention in curbing a growing trend wherein accused persons attempt to bypass judicial scrutiny of their conduct and the merits of the case by voluntarily offering financial assurances, only to later dishonour them. This case stands as a stern reminder that the rule of law must not be subverted by strategic litigation tactics.
Background of the Case
Gajanan Dattatray Gore, the appellant, was arrested on 17 August 2023 in connection with Crime No. 652/2023 registered at Satara City Police Station, Maharashtra. He was accused of serious economic offences including criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery, and criminal intimidation under Sections 406, 408, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The complainant, who runs Satara Advertising Company and I-Can Training Institute, alleged that the appellant, employed as a business development manager, siphoned approximately ₹1.6 crore from the organisation’s funds.
When the trial court rejected his plea for regular bail, Gore approached the Bombay High Court. During the proceedings, his counsel offered a voluntarily signed affidavit-cum-undertaking dated 22 March 2024, promising to deposit ₹25 lakhs in the trial court within five months and to refrain from using the complainant’s brand name or logo.
Impressed by this undertaking and the absence of prior criminal antecedents, the High Court granted him bail on 1 April 2024.
Breach and Its Fallout
Despite securing release, the appellant failed to honour the ₹25 lakh undertaking. Consequently, the original complainant moved the High Court again, seeking cancellation of bail.
The High Court, in its 1 July 2025 order, noted that the bail order had been passed primarily based on the appellant’s promise and that the court had not adjudicated the plea on the merits. It was observed that the accused had “foreclosed consideration of his bail application on merits” by making such an assurance.
Quoting the Supreme Court’s decision in Kundan Singh v. Superintendent of CGST and Central Excise, the High Court criticised this strategy and cancelled Gore’s bail, directing him to surrender within four weeks.
Gore appealed to the Supreme Court, which upheld the cancellation of bail and took the opportunity to clarify a critical point in criminal jurisprudence.
Key Highlights: Decision of the Supreme Court
J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ. stated:
“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.”
“Litigants are taking the courts for a ride and thereby undermining the dignity and honour of the court.”
“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.”
Supreme Court’s Directive: A Blanket Ban on Bail via Undertakings
In an unequivocal pronouncement, the Court laid down that:
- No regular or anticipatory bail shall be granted solely based on undertakings of the accused or their family members regarding monetary deposits or any conditional promise.
- Courts must assess bail purely on merits, considering relevant legal principles like the severity of the offence, risk of absconding, tampering with evidence, and other statutory factors under Chapter XXXIII of the Criminal Procedure Code (now BNSS, 2023).
This move ensures that the bail process remains rooted in the principle of fairness, not financial capability or tactical maneuvering.
What Went Wrong: The Ethics and Strategy of Defence
The Supreme Court was particularly scathing about the role of the defence in such instances. It noted that the lawyer representing the appellant had argued the ₹25 lakh deposit was “unreasonable” after the bail was granted, despite voluntarily offering it earlier. The Court said this “reflects on the professional ethics” of the advocate involved.
Such conduct not only undermines judicial discretion but also misleads the court. The practice of offering large deposits to secure liberty and then reneging on them later, as seen here, was termed “approbating and reprobating” by the Court.
Comparison with Past Precedents
The appellant relied on prior Supreme Court judgments such as:
- Ramesh Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi
- Apurva Kirti Mehta v. State of Maharashtra
- Biman Chatterjee v. Sanchita Chatterjee
However, the apex court distinguished the facts of those cases. For instance, Biman Chatterjee involved matrimonial compromise, and not monetary undertakings used as a tool to bypass bail scrutiny. The Court ruled such precedents were inapplicable to Gore’s situation.
Instead, it relied heavily on its judgment in Kundan Singh, where the accused attempted to bypass bail merits through similar deposit offers, which were later dishonoured. That decision had strongly decried such tactics.
Legal Significance of the Ruling
This judgment has wide-ranging implications:
- Ends the practice of conditional liberty through undertakings: Accused persons can no longer negotiate their release by dangling financial carrots before the court.
- Reinforces the sanctity of the bail process: Bail decisions must now be based solely on legal and factual considerations.
- Discourages manipulative litigation strategies: The Court has sent a message that clever tactics will not protect an accused from the consequences of breach.
- Sets precedent for High Courts and trial courts: All future bail decisions must steer clear of imposing or accepting monetary undertakings.
Directions Issued by the Court
Apart from affirming the High Court’s cancellation order, the Supreme Court issued these binding directions:
- Trial courts and High Courts shall not accept or act on any undertaking or voluntary promise by an accused while deciding bail or anticipatory bail applications.
- Bail decisions must be strictly based on the merits of each case in accordance with law.
- Courts must not act as “recovery agents” for complainants in criminal proceedings.
- The Registry was directed to circulate the judgment to all High Courts to ensure uniform application.
- A cost of ₹50,000 was imposed on the appellant for abusing the judicial process, to be deposited with the Supreme Court Mediation Centre.
Broader Implications for Criminal Justice
The Court’s observations extend beyond the immediate facts of this case. In the Indian criminal justice landscape, where delays are rampant and trial backlogs are colossal, bail jurisprudence is a sensitive domain. By eliminating the shortcut of financial undertakings:
- Equality before the law is reaffirmed. Accused persons with financial means will no longer have an undue advantage over others.
- Public trust in courts is preserved. Allowing accused persons to escape custody by making and then flouting solemn promises erodes faith in the judiciary.
- Judicial discretion is safeguarded. Courts must not be cornered into granting bail on the basis of pre-crafted strategies designed to escape scrutiny.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2025) is a landmark in curbing the misuse of bail procedures. It not only reinforces the idea that liberty cannot be bought through promises but also safeguards the integrity of judicial processes. The ruling is a powerful statement that justice must be earned on merits, not negotiated through undertakings.
Courts across the country would do well to adhere strictly to this principle. It is now clear: undertakings are not a substitute for justice.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams