"No Bail Orders Based on Financial Undertakings, Litigants Taking Courts for a Ride Must End": Supreme Court Cancels Bail, Orders Pan-India Compliance with Merits-Only Evaluation
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan has issued a directive restraining all High Courts and Trial Courts across the country from granting bail—regular or anticipatory—based on an accused's undertaking to deposit money. In a judgment delivered on July 28, 2025, the Court categorically held 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." The apex court dismissed the appeal filed by the accused against the cancellation of his bail and imposed costs for abuse of process. The Court directed that all future bail applications must be adjudicated strictly on their legal merits. The order has been directed to be circulated to all High Courts to ensure uniform compliance.
The appellant was arrested in connection with Crime No.652 of 2023, registered with Satara City Police Station, Maharashtra, under Sections 406, 408, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant, Respondent No.2, runs Satara Advertising Company and I-Can Training Institute, operating several branches in Maharashtra. The appellant was employed as a business development manager for both these entities.
According to the prosecution, the appellant misappropriated an amount of Rs.1,60,00,000/- belonging to the complainant. He was arrested on August 17, 2023. His application for regular bail was initially rejected by the Trial Court. Subsequently, he approached the Bombay High Court.
On April 1, 2024, the High Court granted bail to the appellant upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- and an undertaking to deposit Rs.25,00,000/- within five months. The appellant voluntarily filed an affidavit-cum-undertaking dated March 22, 2024, declaring that he would not use the name or logo of I-Can Institute and that the said deposit would be made in the Trial Court.
The High Court recorded in its bail order that the undertaking was made voluntarily and accepted the appellant's commitment. Consequently, the appellant was released from custody. However, despite being released, he failed to deposit the amount of Rs.25,00,000/- as undertaken.
Thereafter, Respondent No.2 filed an interim application seeking cancellation of bail on grounds of breach of the solemn undertaking. The appellant’s counsel also moved an application to relax the bail condition of deposit, which was later withdrawn unconditionally.
The High Court, on July 1, 2025, allowed the cancellation plea and directed the appellant to surrender before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Satara within four weeks. The High Court observed that the accused had secured his release on the basis of a voluntary offer to deposit funds, thereby preventing the Court from evaluating the bail application on merits. It further noted that the appellant had breached the conditions and could not now allege the requirement to be onerous.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant challenged the cancellation of bail, contending that the condition to deposit Rs.25,00,000/- was excessive and unenforceable. The respondent submitted that the undertaking was made voluntarily and the accused could not be allowed to renege on it after securing liberty.
The Supreme Court recorded that "we have noticed over a period of time that orders of regular bail and anticipatory bail are being passed by different High Courts subject to deposit of some amount." The Court noted that in many cases accused persons file affidavits promising to deposit certain sums and then resile from such undertakings by claiming the conditions are onerous or blaming their lawyers.
It was observed that "in many cases it would be argued on behalf of the accused that he had never made such a statement and the court on its own had recorded in the order that the accused is ready and willing to deposit a particular amount." The bench stated the prevalence of this practice, stating the risk it poses to the dignity and integrity of judicial proceedings.
Regarding the present matter, the Court stated, "the case in hand is one in which the appellant on his own free will and volition filed an affidavit in the form of an undertaking before the High Court that he would deposit an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- but ultimately resiled to do so and the High Court had to cancel the bail."
It further remarked that "it was too much for the lawyer of the appellant to argue before the High Court that asking his client to deposit Rs. 25,00,000/- was unreasonable. It reflects on the professional ethics."
Citing the judgment in Kundan Singh vs. The Superintendent of CGST and Central Excise, the Court stated that "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." It added, "We strongly deprecate this practice."
On broader judicial procedure, the Bench held, "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."
The Court clarified that "the High Courts as well as the Trial Courts shall decide the plea for regular bail or anticipatory bail strictly on the merits of the case." It cautioned that "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 concluded the matter by issuing a series of directions and dismissing the appeal: "This appeal fails and is hereby dismissed."
It directed 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."
The Court stated, "The High Courts as well as the Trial Courts shall decide the plea for regular bail or anticipatory bail strictly on the merits of the case. 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."
The Bench ordered that "this practice has to be stopped. Litigants are taking the courts for a ride and thereby undermining the dignity and honor of the court."
To ensure implementation, the Court directed: "The Registry is directed to circulate one copy each of this order to all the High Courts at the earliest."
The Court further stated: "Once the appellant surrenders and is taken in judicial custody, it shall be open for him to file a fresh regular bail application before the Court concerned and such bail application shall be decided strictly on its own merits and in accordance with law."
Additionally, for abuse of process, the Court imposed costs, stating: "We impose cost of Rs.50,000/- for gross abuse of the process of law and taking the High Court as well as this Court for a ride. This amount shall be deposited within a period of one week from today before the Supreme Court Mediation Centre and the compliance be reported."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. A.M. Bojor Barua, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Prashant S. Kenjale, Advocate
Case Title: Gajanan Dattatray Gore versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 913
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 3219/2025
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice R. Mahadevan
