Supreme Court ordered all courts to stop granting bail just because someone promises to pay money. Bail must only be given based on case facts, not on undertakings.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India has clearly told all High Courts and trial courts in the country that they should not give regular bail or anticipatory bail only because the accused or their family promises to deposit a specific amount of money.
This strong message came from a Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, who said:
“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…This practice has to be stopped. Litigants are taking the courts for a ride and thereby undermining the dignity and honor of the court.”
The Supreme Court made it clear that all courts must decide bail applications only based on the merits of the case — meaning the actual facts, evidence, and legal grounds — and not based on any promise or undertaking made by the accused.
“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…We hope and trust that the High Courts as well as the Trial Courts across the country do not commit the same mistake again,”
-the Court said.
This direction was passed while the Supreme Court was hearing a case filed by Gajanan Dattatray Gore, who was challenging a Bombay High Court order that had changed the earlier bail order granted to him.
Gore was arrested in a criminal case involving the alleged misappropriation of Rs 1.6 crore. At first, the Bombay High Court gave him bail after he submitted an affidavit-cum-undertaking stating he would deposit Rs 25 lakh with the trial court. But after being released on bail, he failed to pay the amount he had promised.
Due to this, the complainant filed an interim application requesting the cancellation of Gore’s bail. The High Court agreed that there was merit in the complainant’s request and changed its earlier decision. It ordered Gore to surrender before the Judicial Magistrate in Satara within four weeks.
During the appeal hearing, the Supreme Court noted that many High Courts in India have been granting bail based on the accused agreeing to deposit certain amounts of money. While some accused do pay the amount later, many others fail to do so, creating serious problems in court proceedings.
The Court observed that in many such cases, the accused or their lawyers later argue that they never made such a promise, or blame their lawyers for giving the undertaking just to get bail.
“In such 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,”
-the top court said.
In Gore’s case, the Court explained that he had given the undertaking willingly in writing, but then failed to keep his word. This forced the High Court to cancel his bail.
The Supreme Court also said it was not proper for Gore’s lawyer to now argue that asking for a Rs 25 lakh deposit was unfair.
ALSO READ: Madras High Court Justice GR Swaminathan: “Vedas Will Always Protect Their Devotees”
Since Gore himself had earlier agreed to pay that amount, questioning it now raised serious questions about honesty and professional ethics.
“…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,”
-the Court firmly stated while dismissing Gore’s appeal.
The Court also fined Gore Rs 50,000 for misusing the legal process and for misleading the High Court.
Advocate AM Bojor Barua represented the appellant (Gore), while Advocate Prashant S Kenjale represented the respondent in this case.
CASE TITLE:
Gajanan Dattatray Gore vs State of Maharashtra.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI BR Gavai
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Bail
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
