Today, On 23rd June, The Supreme Court criticised an accused for withdrawing a voluntary bail Condition payout offer, saying, “It undermines the sanctity of the judicial process and amounts to playing ‘ducks and drakes’ with the court,” stressing accountability in bail conditions.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court stated that defendants seeking bail by offering substantial amounts as part of their bail conditions cannot later withdraw their offers and challenge the bail order as “onerous.”
The Court noted,
“It undermines the sanctity of the judicial process and amounts to playing ‘ducks and drakes’ with the court.”
In a case stemming from the Madras High Court, where a man defaulted on a payment exceeding Rs.13 crore in goods and services tax (GST).
Also Read: Supreme Court: “Bail Conditions Must Be Subject to Restrictions in Special Law”
A bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and N. Kotiswar Singh criticized the actions of Kundan Singh, whose lawyer had previously offered to pay Rs.50 lakh as part of the bail condition, in addition to settling outstanding dues of over Rs.2.7 crore.
The bench remarked,
“What is troubling us is that an attempt is being made to foreclose consideration of bail on merits by voluntarily offering deposit of amounts and thereafter reneging on it by saying that either the counsel had no authority to make such a statement or the (bail) condition is onerous,”
The Court set-aside the high court’s May 8 order, stating,
“We strongly deprecate this practice. We have to be conscious of the sanctity of judicial process. We cannot allow parties to play ducks and drakes with the court. In this scenario, the only conclusion possible is that the original order of May 8 (modified on May 14) will have to be set aside and matter be remitted to the high court for consideration on merits.”
The Supreme Court observed that the high court did not evaluate the matter on its merits, given that bail was opposed by the Superintendent of Central GST and Central Excise, and emphasized,
“We cannot permit parties to take advantage of a device resorted to by them to secure an order of release.”
However, the Court refrained from directing the petitioner to surrender, as senior advocate V. Chitambaresh informed the bench that his client needed to care for his pregnant wife and ailing father.
The Court requested the Chief Justice of the high court to take up the matter “expeditiously” and converted the bail order into interim bail until the high court addresses it.
Furthermore, it urged the high court to decide on the bail plea swiftly and without influence from the current observations. Chitambaresh stated that his client could not afford the amount set by the high court and that the lawyer representing the petitioner lacked authorization to make such an offer before the order was issued.
The bench expressed a desire to issue general guidelines, as they noted a rise in similar cases reaching the Supreme Court.
The bench added,
“This scenario is becoming commonplace before this court. When parties move petition for anticipatory bail or regular bail, a voluntary offer is made by their counsel that they will deposit a substantial amount to show their bona fide.”
The bench observed,
“What happens is that the high court is foreclosed from considering the merits of the matter. An order is made recording the submission of the lawyer to grant anticipatory bail or regular bail. An appeal is made thereafter claiming that the condition of bail is onerous.”
In this instance, the petitioner faced charges under the Central GST Act for supplying goods without proper invoices and was accused of evading taxes amounting to Rs.13.7 crore. Arrested on March 27, the petitioner’s lawyer had offered to deposit Rs.2.7 crore upfront and comply with any stringent conditions set by the high court.
The bail conditions established by the high court were agreed upon by the petitioner’s lawyer, stating that failure to deposit Rs.2.7 crore along with Rs.50 lakh within 10 days of release would lead to automatic dismissal of the bail plea.
The Supreme Court has consistently held that onerous bail conditions cannot be imposed when granting bail, clarifying,
“What is onerous will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.”
This particular case was differentiated by the Court, as the condition arose from the voluntary offer made by the accused or his lawyer.
Case Title: KUNDAN SINGH vs THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE, SLP(Crl) No. 9111/2025
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
