Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Kundan Singh vs The Superintendent Of Cgst And Central … on 23 June, 2025
ITEM NO.16 COURT NO.11 SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).9111/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 14-05-2025
in CRLOP No.14718/2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Madras]
KUNDAN SINGH Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE Respondent(s)
(IA No.146380/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT)
Date : 23-06-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH
(PARTIAL COURT WORKING DAYS BENCH)
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. V. Chitambaresh, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Aswathi M.K., AOR
Mr. J.arul Pragasam, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. We have heard Shri V. Chitambaresh, learned senior counsel for
the petitioner.
2. This case presents a scenario which is becoming common place
before us in this Court. When parties move applications for
anticipatory bail or for regular bail, voluntary offer is made by
their counsel that the parties would deposit substantial amounts to
show the bona fide and secure their liberty. The Courts’ hearing
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ARJUN BISHT
Date: 2025.06.24
the bail applications are thereby foreclosed from considering the
15:25:08 IST
Reason:
merits of the matter and orders are made recording the undertaking
1
of counsel about willingness to deposit amounts and orders foranticipatory bails/bails are granted.
3. Thereafter, grievance is made before the higher Courts that
the condition imposed for bail is onerous and illegal. We do
nothing more than to notice the facts that have transpired in this
case.
4. The petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under
Sections 132(1)(a), 132(1)(i) and 132(5) of the Central Goods and
Services Tax Act, 2017. The case of the prosecution was that the
petitioner has evaded the tax to the tune of Rs.13,73,00,000/-. The
petitioner was arrested on 27.03.2025. When the bail application
came up before the High Court, at the very outset, learned counsel
for the petitioner made a submission that the petitioner has
already deposited Rs.2,86,00,000/- and that he is in custody since
27.03.2025. It was further submitted that the petitioner is willing
to abide by any stringent conditions. Thereafter, the prosecutor
was heard, who vehemently opposed the grant of bail.
5. At that stage, learned counsel for the petitioner voluntarily
submitted that without prejudice to his defence and contentions,
the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit a sum of
Rs.2,50,00,000/- to the credit of the crime number within a period
of 10 days from the date of his release. He further submitted that
no application for extension of time for such payment will be filed
after his release and if any such application is filed, the same
may be dismissed out-rightly. Considering this submission, the High
Court, with no further discussion, granted bail to the petitioner
with a direction to make a deposit of Rs.50,00,000/- to the credit
2
of case in RR No.15/2025 pending before the Trial Court. Further
direction was given that the remaining sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/- be
deposited within a period of 10 days from the date of his release.
It was further directed that on proof of payment of Rs.50,00,000/-,
the petitioner be released on bail on his executing a bond for a
sum of Rs.10,000/-. This order was made on 08.05.2025. It was
further directed that on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions,
the Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action.
6. On 12.05.2025, a prayer for modification was made before the
High Court by filing Crl.M.P. No.10067/2025. In the petition for
modification, it was averred that the condition to deposit
Rs.50,00,000/- before his release was highly impossible due to the
circumstances set out in the petition (i.e. pregnancy of his wife
and the ill-health of his father) and all that was prayed was that
Rs.50,00,000/- also be directed to be made after his release within
the time fixed by this Court in the original bail order. The
modification application was heard on 14.05.2025 when the
petitioner was granted liberty to deposit the entire amount
including Rs.50,00,000/- (i.e., Rs.2 crores originally ordered plus
Rs.50 lakhs) within a period of 10 days from the date of his
release, failing which it was directed that the bail petition was
to be treated as dismissed. The other conditions were to remain
unaltered.
7. It is this order of modification which is challenged in the
present special leave petition and Shri V. Chitambaresh, learned
senior counsel has drawn attention to a whole host of precedents
cited in the petition about how onerous conditions cannot be
3
imposed while bail orders are granted.
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 the 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
4
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 to the petitioner from surrendering.
12. Crl. O.P. No.14718/2025 will stand restored to file of the
High Court of Judicature at Madras. Let the papers be placed before
the Chief Justice of the High Court of Madras on or before
30.06.2025 with a request to the Chief Justice to place the matter
before the appropriate Court immediately. We request the High Court
to dispose of the matter expeditiously and in accordance with law
uninfluenced by any of the observations that we have made in this
order.
13. The petitioner will have interim protection from surrendering
on the same bond executed by him pursuant to the order of the High
Court till the first date of listing before the High Court after
remand. The High Court is free to pass appropriate orders on merits
in accordance with law.
14. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, disposed of in the
above terms.
15. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(ARJUN BISHT) (SUDHIR KUMAR SHARMA)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
5