Supreme Court ruled courts should not insist on upfront monetary deposits or guarantees as conditions for granting or considering bail, warning such practices may distort justice. The bench made observations while hearing an SLP challenging denial of interim bail in a subsidy diversion case.
NEW DELHI: In a landmark decision regarding bail jurisprudence, the Supreme Court has emphasized that courts should not mandate upfront monetary deposits or guarantees as prerequisites for granting or reviewing bail. This practice could undermine the criminal justice system and may be exploited for coercive settlements.
A bench comprising Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan offered these insights while hearing a special leave petition (SLP) contesting a Delhi High Court order that refused to extend the interim bail for an individual implicated in a case concerning the alleged diversion of government subsidy funds.
Referencing its recent judgment in Gajanan Dattatray Gore vs. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the consideration of bail should not be contingent on financial conditions.
The Bench led by Justice Misra stated ,
“The decision in Gajanan Dattatray Gore deprecates the practice of the courts insisting on upfront deposits, or undertaking for such deposits, or compliance(s) of certain obligations, from bail/stay applicants for consideration of their prayer on merits,”
The court highlighted that such practices,
“encourage implication with an oblique purpose and have the potential to derail the criminal justice delivery system by making it a tool in the hands of unscrupulous complainant(s) to extort a settlement and force the other side to give up its right of defence.”
ALSO READ: Umar Khalid’s Case| ‘Multiple Adjournments, Then Bail Withdrawn’: Ex-CJI Chandrachud
This SLP stemmed from a July 21, 2025, order by the Delhi High Court, which denied the extension of the accused’s interim bail due to his failure to comply with an undertaking to deposit the remaining allegedly diverted funds.
During its proceedings, the Supreme Court noted that rather than continually extending interim bail while demanding additional deposits, it would be more appropriate to assess the regular bail application based on its substantive merits.
The bench remarked,
“If a person is unable to comply with the undertaking, that is not a ground to defer consideration of the bail prayer on merits,”
Moreover, the court pointed out that in cases involving Section 409 of the IPC, there is no assumption of culpability for a company director, and any such liability must be proven during the trial.
Concluding the SLP, the Supreme Court directed the Delhi High Court to adjudicate the accused’s regular bail application swiftly, ideally within three weeks, while allowing the interim protection to remain in effect in the meantime.
The court ordered,
“In the interregnum, the interim order that was passed on 21.07.2025 shall remain operative,”
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
