Supreme Court Directs Trial Courts & High Courts To Not Grant Bail Relying On Undertakings By Accused

The Supreme Court has directed Trial Courts and High Courts not to 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 and only stick to merits of case.

The Court was considering an Appeal against an order of the High Court whereby interim application was allowed and Bail Order was modified.

The division bench of Justice JB Pardiwla and Justice R Mahadevan observed, "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........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.......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 Appellant was represented by Advocate Rathod Rajesh Ranjit.

Facts of the Case

The Case against the Appellant was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 408, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 read with 34 respectively of the Indian Penal Code over allegations of misappropriation of an amount of ₹1,60,00,000/-

As the Trial Court declined to release the Appellant on regular bail, he went before the High Court which ordered release of the Appellant on bail, subject to deposit of ₹25,00,000/- in the Trial Court which the Appellant himself volunteered to deposit and also submitted affidavit to this regard.

However, the Appellant failed to comply and therefore the Respondent No.2 preferred an Interim Application in the Original Bail Application seeking cancellation of the order of bail granted by the High Court. The High Court vide its impugned order directed that the Appellant shall surrender before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class within a period of four weeks.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset observed that it has 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.

"We have come across cases like the one in hand where accused persons have gone to the extent of filing affidavits in the form of undertaking that they would deposit a particular amount within a particular period and then conveniently resile from such undertakings saying it is an onerous condition", the Court observed.

It further stated that in some cases, perhaps the accused may abide by such undertaking, but based on record, in many cases the accused later would not abide and flout the undertaking.

"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. At times the entire blame is thrown on the lawyer in making such statement for the purpose of obtaining order of bail or anticipatory bail as the case may be. 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 Court stated.

It also emphasized that it was too much for the lawyer of the Appellant to argue before the High Court that asking his client to deposit ₹25,00,000/- was unreasonable as it reflects on professional ethics.

Stressing that a stop on this practice is required, the Court directed the Trial Courts and High Courts not to 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 and only stick to merits of case.

"This practice has to be stopped. Litigants are taking the courts for a ride and thereby undermining the dignity and honor of the court......In the case in hand, so far as the plea for regular bail is concerned, we are not inclined to look into. The appellant has made a mockery of justice. He could be said to have abused the process of law. If at all the High Court wanted to release the appellant on bail, it should have first asked him to deposit the amount within a particular period of time and upon such deposit the appellant could have been released", the Court ruled.

It made it clear that there shall not be a single order that the High Courts and the Trial Courts shall pass for grant of regular bail or anticipatory bail on the basis of any accused or his/her family members giving an undertaking to deposit a particular amount.

"The plea shall be decided strictly on merits in accordance with law. 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 observed.

The Appeal was accordingly dismissed with ₹50,000/- costs.

Cause Title: Gajanan Dattatray Gore vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Click here to read/ download Order