Supreme Court of India
GAJANAN DATTATRAY GOREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 913
- Decided
- 28 July 2025
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- B PARDIWALA
Holding
Bail cannot be granted on the basis of an undertaking to deposit money; such conditional bail is invalid and may be cancelled, and bail decisions must be made strictly on the merits of the case.
Summary
Gajanan Dattatray Gore was arrested for offences under several sections of the Indian Penal Code, including cheating and criminal breach of trust. He applied for regular bail before the High Court, which granted bail on the condition that he would deposit Rs 25,00,000 within five months, based on an affidavit‑undertaking. Gore failed to make the deposit, prompting the complainant to seek cancellation of the bail, which the High Court ordered, directing Gore to surrender. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that bail must be decided solely on the merits of the case and not on any undertaking to deposit money, declaring such conditional bail orders impermissible. The Court affirmed the cancellation of the bail, dismissed the appeal, and imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 for abuse of the judicial process.
Issues considered
- Whether a bail order conditioned on an accused's undertaking to deposit a specified sum can be validly cancelled upon failure to deposit.
- Whether courts may grant regular or anticipatory bail on the basis of an accused's undertaking or statement to deposit money.
Legislation cited
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Whether the bail granted to the appellant-accused on the basis of his undertaking to deposit Rs.25,00,000/- was rightly cancelled by the High Court on his failure to deposit the same. Headnotes† Directions by Supreme Court – Bail – Grant of, on the basis accused – Practice deprecated – Directions issued: Held: 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 and shall not exercise their discretion in this regard on any undertaking or any statement
Subjects
BailUndertakingUndertaking/statement by accusedUndertaking to deposit a particular amountUndertaking floutedAffidavit in the form of an undertakingBail granted on the basis of undertakingRegular bailAnticipatory bailResiled from undertakingCancellation of bailBail cancelledMockery of justiceAbuse of process of lawBail plea to be decided strictly on merits of the caseDirections by Supreme Court Conditional order of regular bail or anticipatory bailJudicial deprecation
Judgment
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1980 : 2025 INSC 913
Gajanan Dattatray Gore
v.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No. 3219 of 2025)
28 July 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala* and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the bail granted to the appellant-accused on the basis of
his undertaking to deposit Rs.25,00,000/- was rightly cancelled by
the High Court on his failure to deposit the same.
Headnotes†
Directions by Supreme Court – Bail – Grant of, on the basis
of any undertaking/statement given by accused – Practice
deprecated – Directions issued:
Held: 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 and
shall not exercise their discretion in this regard on any undertaking
or any statement that the accused or his/her family members may
be ready and willing to make – No order for grant of bail shall be
made on the basis of the accused 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 – Copy of this order to be sent to all the
High Courts – Judicial deprecation. [Paras 20, 24, 26]
Bail – Cancellation of, when justified – Appellant was granted
bail by High Court on the basis of his undertaking to deposit
Rs.25,00,000/- however, he failed to deposit the same – Challenged
by complainant – Bail cancelled by High Court – Challenge to:
Held: 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 Rs.25,00,000/- subject to which, he may be released on
regular bail – Appellant got himself released on bail but failed to
deposit the amount as undertaken by him before the High Court
* Author
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1981
Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
on oath – Appellant has made a mockery of justice and abused
the process of law – Appellant to surrender – Cost of Rs.50,000/-
imposed. [Paras 8, 18, 23, 28]
List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
List of Keywords
Bail; Undertaking; Undertaking/statement by accused; Undertaking
to deposit a particular amount; Undertaking flouted; Affidavit in the
form of an undertaking; Bail granted on the basis of undertaking;
Regular bail; Anticipatory bail; Resiled from undertaking;
Cancellation of bail; Bail cancelled; Mockery of justice; Abuse of
process of law; Bail plea to be decided strictly on merits of the
case; Directions by Supreme Court Conditional order of regular
bail or anticipatory bail; Judicial deprecation.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
3219 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.07.2025 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay in IA No. 4524 of 2024 in Criminal Bail
Application No. 445 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
A M Bojor Barua, Sr. Adv., Ravindra A. Lokhande, Vishal, Kalpna
Chate, Rukhmini Barua, N Zealing, Rathod Rajesh Ranjit.
Adv. for the Respondents:
Prashant S. Kenjale.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
J.B. Pardiwala, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from the order passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay dated 1-7-2025 below interim application
1982 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
No.4524/2024 filed in Criminal Bail Application No.445/2024, by which
the interim application filed by the original complainant (Respondent
No.2 – herein) came to be allowed and the order of bail passed by
the High Court in favour of the appellant – herein dated 1-4-2024
came to be modified.
3. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be summarized as under:-
4. The appellant – herein came to be arrested in connection with
Crime No.652 of 2023 dated 27-8-2023 registered with the Satara
City Police Station, State of Maharashtra for the offence punishable
under Sections 406, 408, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 read with 34
respectively of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”).
5. The appellant – herein was arrested on 17-8-2023.
6. As the Trial Court declined to release the appellant on regular bail,
he went before the High Court and prayed for regular bail by way
of the Bail Application No.445/2024. The High Court vide its order
dated 1-4-2024 ordered release of the appellant – herein on bail,
subject to deposit of Rs.25,00,000/- (Twenty Five Lakh only) in
the Trial Court. The entire order passed by the High Court dated
1-4-2024 reads thus:-
“1. Heard learned counsel Shri Kadam appearing for the
applicant, learned counsel Shri Gole appearing for the
Intervener and learned APP for the State.
2. Learned counsel Shri Gole appearing for the intervener
and learned APP vehemently opposed the application.
3. This is an application for bail in respect of the offence
punishable under Sections 406, 408, 420, 467, 468, 471,
504, 506, 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered on
27/08/2023 vide C.R. No. 1-652 of 2023 with Satara City
Police Station. The applicant was arrested on 17/08/2023.
4. It is the allegation that the informant runs Satara
Advertising Company and I-Can Training Institute. I-Can
Training Institute is having its several branches at several
places in Maharashtra. Through the Advertising company,
the informant does market work like bulk messages, Whats-
app ‘messages, creating a website, Facebook marketing,
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1983
Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
white call marketing etc. The applicant was employed as
a business development manager for the purpose of both
these institutes. The informant was paying Rs.10,000/- to
30,000/- per month to the applicant. The informant started
a residential academy at Talegaon Dabhade. The applicant
was looking after this branch as a business development
manager. Basically, it is the allegation that an amount of
Rs.1,66,00,000/- was siphoned of by the accused from
the legitimate funds belonging to the informant.
5. The affidavit-cum-undertaking dated 22/03/2024 has
been filed by the applicant voluntarily which is duly affirmed
by the applicant which reads thus:
“I, Mr. Gajanan Dattatray Gore, Age: 31
years, Occ: Business, Residence at:154,
Block, Somwar Peth, Near Datta Mandir,
Satara presently at Central Prison of Kalamb,
Dist: Kolhapur, do hereby state on solemn
affirmation as under:-
1) I say that, I undertake to deposit 25,00,000/-
(Twenty Five Lakhs Only) within 5 months Before
this Hon’ble Court for showing my bonafide
Before this Hon’ble Court.
2) I say and undertake that, I will not use the
name of I Can Institute.
3) I further say and undertake that, I will also
not use a logo of I Can Institute for my person
as well as business purpose.
Whatever stated hereinabove is true to my
knowledge, which I believe to be true and correct
for which I sign herein under.”
6. The statements made in the affidavit-cum-undertaking
are treated as an undertaking to this Court. Learned counsel
for the applicant on instructions submitted that the applicant
is willing to abide by the statements made in the affidavit.
The statements are accepted. It is expressly made clear
by learned counsel for the applicant on instructions of
1984 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the applicant that in the logo of “JAMAKA” which is used
by the accused, the words “ICAN TRAINING INSTITUTE
PVT LTD” will not be used. The statement is accepted.
There are no criminal antecedents reported against the
applicant. The applicant was arrested on 17/08/2023.
The trial is likely to take a long time to conclude. Further
custody will only be by way of a pre-trial punishment in the
facts and circumstance of the case. The applicant will face
the consequences post-trial if found guilty. The applicant
is in custody for more than 7 months with no possibility
of the trial concluding any time soon. The investigation is
complete. The charge-sheet has been filed. The applicant
can be enlarged on bail. Hence, the following order :-
(a) The application is allowed.
(b) The applicant- Gajanan Dattatray Gore
in connection with C.R. No.1-652 of 2023
registered with Satara City Police Station shall
be released on bail on his furnishing P.R. Bond
of Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties in the
like amount
(c) The applicant is permitted to furnish cash bail
surety in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- for a period
of 6 weeks in lieu of surety.
(d) The applicant shall attend the Investigating
Officer of Satara City Police Station once in three
months on every first Monday of the concerned
month commencing from May 2024 between
11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m.
(e) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly
make any inducement, threat or promise to any
person acquainted with the facts of the case so
as to dissuade him from disclosing the facts to
Court. or any Police Officer. The applicant shall
not tamper with evidence.
(f) On being released on bail, the applicant
shall furnish his contact number and residential
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1985
Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
address to the Investigating Officer and shall
keep him updated, in case there is any change.
(g) The applicant shall attend the trial regularly.
The applicant shall co-operate with the trial Court
and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments.
(h) The applicant shall abide by the statements
made in the affidavit.
(i) The amount of Rs.25 lakhs be deposited in
the trial Court instead of this Court which shall
abide by the final outcome of the trial Court’s
order. It is open for the trial Court to invest the
amount in any nationalised bank.
7. The application is disposed of.”
7. Thus, it appears on plain reading of the order, referred to above, that the
allegations against the appellant – herein are one of misappropriation
of an amount of Rs.1,60,00,000/- (One Crore and Sixty Lakh only).
8. When the bail application was being heard by the High Court, a
statement was made forward on behalf of the appellant-herein, may
be his lawyer, who was appearing on instructions or otherwise that the
appellant is ready and willing to deposit Rs.25,00,000/- and subject
to such deposit, he may be released on regular bail.
9. An affidavit-cum-undertaking dated 22-3-2024 came to be filed by
the appellant – herein before the High Court. We find reference of
this affidavit in para 5 of the order, referred to above.
10. Taking advantage of the order, referred to above, the appellant
got himself released on bail but failed to deposit the amount of
Rs.25,00,000/- as undertaken by him before the High Court on oath.
11. In such circumstances, the Respondent No.2 – herein (original
complainant) preferred an interim application in the original bail
application seeking cancellation of the order of bail granted by the
High Court.
12. The High Court vide its impugned order dated 1-7-2025 directed that
the appellant shall surrender before the Court of Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Satara within a period of four weeks.
1986 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
13. We deem it appropriate to incorporate the entire impugned order
passed by the High Court as under:-
“1. Heard Mr. Ganesh Gole, learned Advocate for the
Applicant, Mr. Shailesh Kharat, learned Advocate for
Respondent No. 1, and Mrs. Veera Shinde, learned APP
for State.
2. Respondent No. 1 is the Accused in Crime No. 652
of 2023, registered with the Satara City Police Station,
Satara for the offences punishable under section 406,
408, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 & 506 of Indian Penal Code.
Said crime is registered at the instance of the Applicant
(Complainant).
3. Prosecution case is that the Applicant runs Satara
Advertising Company and I-Can Training Institute, having
several of its branches in the State of Maharashtra.
Respondent No. 1 was employed as a business development
manager, by the Applicant. Respondent No.1 is alleged to
have siphoned an amount of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- from the
funds belonging to the Applicant.
4. Respondent No. 1 was arrested on 17.08.2023.
5. Bail Application No. 445 of 2024, filed by the Respondent
No. 1 was allowed by this Court on 01.04.2024. Respondent
No. 1 was released on the following bail condition:
“(a) The application is allowed.
(b) The applicant- Gajanan Dattatray Gore
in connection with C.R. No.I-652 of 2023
registered with Satara City police Station shall
be released on bail on his furnishing P.R. Bond
of Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties in the
like amount.
(c) The applicant is permitted to furnish cash bail
surety in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- for a period
of 6 weeks in lieu of surety.
(d) The applicant shall attend the Investigating
Officer of Satara City Police Station once in three
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1987
Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
months on every first Monday of the concerned
month commencing from May 2024 between
11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m.
(e) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly
make any inducement, threat or promise to any
person acquainted with the facts of the case so
as to dissuade him from disclosing the facts to
Court or any Police Officer. The applicant shall
not tamper with evidence.
(f) On being released on bail, the applicant
shall furnish his contact number and residential
address to the Investigating Officer and shall
keep him updated, in case there is any change.
(g) The applicant shall attend the trial regularly.
The applicant shall co-operate with the trial Court
and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments.
(h) The applicant shall abide by the statements
made in the affidavit.
(i) The amount of Rs.25 lakhs be deposited in
the trial Court instead of this Court which shall
abide by the final outcome of the trial Court’s
order. It is open for the trial Court to invest the
amount in any nationalized bank.”
6. The prelude to the said bail conditions is found in
paragraphs- 5 and 6 of the said order 01.04.2024, which
paragraphs are transcribed herein below:
5. The affidavit-cum-undertaking dated
22/03/2024 has been filed by the applicant
voluntarily which is duly affirmed by the applicant
which reads thus:
“I, Mr. Gajanan Dattatray Gore, Age: 31 years,
Occ: Business, Residence at:154, Block, Somwar
Peth, Near Datta Mandir, Satara presently at
Central Prison of Kalamb, Dist: Kolhapur, do
hereby state on solemn affirmation as under:-
1988 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
1) I say that, I undertake to deposit
25,00,000/- (Twenty Five Lakhs Only)
within 5 months before this Hon’ble
Court for showing my bonafide before
this Hon’ble Court.
2) I say and undertake that, I will not
use the name of I CAN Institute.
3) I further say and undertake that,
I will also not use a logo of I CAN
Institute for my personal as well as
business purpose.
Whatever stated hereinabove is true
to my knowledge, which believe to
be true and correct for which I sign
herein under.”
6. The statements made in the affidavit-cum- undertaking
are treated as an undertaking to this Court. Learned
counsel for the applicant on instructions submitted that the
applicant is willing to abide by the statements made in the
affidavit. The statements are accepted. It is expressly made
clear by learned counsel for the applicant on instructions
of the applicant that in the logo of “JAMAKA” which is used
by the accused, the words “ICAN TRAINING INSTITUTE
PVT LTD” will not be used. The statement is accepted.
There are nо criminal antecedents reported against the
applicant. The applicant was arrested on 17/08/2023.
The trial is likely to take a long time to conclude. Further
custody will only be by way of a pre-trial punishment in
the facts and circumstance of the case. The applicant
will face the consequences post-trial if found guilty. The
applicant is in custody for more than 7 months with no
possibility of the trial concluding any time soon. The
investigation is complete. The charge-sheet has been
filed. The applicant can be enlarged on bail. Hence, the
following order:”
7. On 06.08.2024, Respondent No.1 filed Interim Application
No. 3106 of 2024, seeking the following relief:-
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1989
Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
“That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to relax the
condition No. (i) imposed by this Hon’ble Court
while passing the order dated 01.04.2024,”
8. Interim Application No. 3106 of 2024, was unconditionally
withdrawn by the Respondent No. 1, on 23.06.2025.
9. By the present Application, the Applicant has sought
for the following reliefs:
“а. This Hon’ble Court may kindly cancel the
bail granted by this Hon’ble Court in Criminal
Bail Application No. 445 of 2024, whereby this
Hon’ble Court was pleased to grant bail to the
Respondent No. 1 vide order dated 01.04.2024,
and further be pleased to direct the Respondent
No. 2 to Immediately arrest Respondent No.1
and to take him in custody in connection with the
C.R. No. I-652/2023 dated 16.08.2023 registered
with Satara City Police Station, Satara.”
10. Mr. Gole, learned Advocate for the Applicant submits
that Respondent No. 1 while seeking bail had made
representation to this Court, by which he had voluntarily
expressed his desire to deposit the amount in Court, as
more particularly mentioned and stated in the undertaking
dated 22.03.2024, supported with an affidavit. He submits
that the Respondent No. 1 had called upon and persuaded
this Court to consider the request for bail solely on the
basis of his representations and assurances made/ given
in the undertaking i.e. his willingness to pay the amount.
He submits that by the said mode the Respondent No.1
had prevented this Court from dealing with the bail
application on merits. He submits that Respondent No. 1
has defaulted and breached the solemn undertaking given
by the Respondent No. 1 to this Court, thereby violating
bail condition No. 6(i). He relies on the grounds raised by
the Applicant in paragraph 14(a) to (i) of the Application
and prays for cancellation of bail.
11. Mrs. Veera Shinde, learned APP for the State submits
that the Respondent No.1 had himself volunteered to
1990 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
deposit the amount by submitting undertaking to this Court.
She submits that the application for bail was decided
solely on the basis of the offer to deposit as made by the
Respondent No.1. She submits that the Respondent No.1
having offered to deposit the amount out of his own free
will and after having taken benefit of such representations,
Respondent No.1 cannot be permitted to resile from the
undertaking. She submits that the undertaking given by
the Applicant is valid. She submits that Respondent No. 1
having breached the undertaking, the bail is required to
be cancelled.
12. Mr. Kharat, learned Advocate for the Respondent
No. 1 submits that the bail condition 6(i) imposed by this
Court in its order dated 01.04.2024 in Bail Application No.
445 of 2024 is onerous conditions. He submits that such
condition while granting bail is not tenable. In support of
his submissions he relies on the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v/s. State
of NCT of Delhi and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Apurva Kirti Mehta V/s. State of
Maharashtra & Anr. He further relies on the decision of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Biman Chatterjee v/s.
Sanchita Chatterjee & anr. to contend that non-fulfillment
of assurance of a compromise cannot be the basis of
canceling bail.
13. I have perused record with the assistance of the learned
Advocates for the parties.
14. Respondent No.1 by voluntarily offering deposit of
amount, while seeking indulgence of this Court to have
his liberty secured and restored, foreclosed consideration
of his bail application on merits. Respondent No.1 by his
conduct persuaded this Court not to go into the merits of
the bail order dated 01.04.2024 passed in Bail Application
No. 445 of 2024 clearly indicates this Court being called
upon by the Respondent No.1 to pass an order on his
bail application, solely on the representation of deposit
of money as made in the undertaking dated 22.03.2024.
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1991
Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Respondent No.1 has derived benefit of the Order dated
01.04.2024 and has secured his liberty.
15. Mr. Shailesh Kharat relies on the Judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar
(supra) and Apurva Kirti Mehta (supra) to submit that a
criminal court, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail is not
expected to act as a recovery agent to realise the dues
of the complainant and financial deposit as a condition
for bail is impressible.
16. It is trite law that imposing of financial deposit as a
condition for bail is not permissible and that the process
of Criminal Law particularly, in matters of grant of bail are
not akin to money recovery proceedings.
17. Respondent No.1 as and by way of an after thought, is
attempting to renege by contending the said bail condition
to deposit amount, to be onerous. Such practice has been
deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Kundan Singh vs. The Superintendent of CGST and Central
Excise. In paras 8, 9, 10 & 11 the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has observed as under:-
“8. There cannot be any dispute that excessive
bail is no bail and onerous conditions ought not
to be imposed while bail is granted. As to what
is an onerous condition would no doubt depend
on the facts and circumstances of the individual
case. What is troubling however, is when
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.
9. We are not able to countenance this practice.
Even in this case the argument is that the
counsel has no authority to offer monetary
deposit, when in the modification application
no such averment was made and all that was
1992 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
averred was that the amount of Rs.50,00,000/-,
as directed, be also deferred to the point after
the release of the petitioner.
10. We strongly deprecate this practice. If
the offer for monetary deposit had not been
made, at the outset, the High Court may have
considered the case on merits and may have
granted or may not have granted relief to the
petitioner. Today the petitioner is approbating
and reprobating. We are conscious of his rights
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, but
we have to be equally conscious of the sanctity
of the judicial process and cannot allow parties
to play ducks and drakes with the Court. In
this scenario, the only conclusion possible is
that both, the original bail order of 08.05.2025
and the order of modification dated 14.05.2025
granting final relief, will have to be set aside
and the matter be remitted to the High Court
for fresh consideration on merits uninfluenced
by any of the observations of this Court.
11. The situation now is that the petitioner taking
advantage of the order of the High Court has
secured his release. Ordinarily the consequence
would have been to put the petitioner back in
jail. However, considering the averments made
in the modification application in this case, we
are inclined to grant a limited interim protection
from surrendering.”
18. Mr. Kharat, submits that the decision in the case of
Kundan Singh (supra) would not apply to the case of
the Respondent No. 1. Said contention is premised on
the ground that the bail condition of making deposit as
a condition of bail is onerous. I am unable to accept the
said contention as it was the Respondent No.1 who out
of his own free will volunteered, by way of an undertaking
to deposit the amount. Undertaking in the present case
indicates the Respondent No.1 rest content with the
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1993
Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
deposit of the amount. Interim Application No. 3106 of
2024, filed by the Respondent No.1 seeking relaxation of
bail condition No. 6 (i) is dismissed as withdrawn. In the
peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it is not open
to the Respondent No.1 to contend that the bail condition
in para 6 (i) to be onerous.
19. Mr. Kharat, submits that the order dated 01.04.2024,
in addition to the undertaking dated 22.03.2024, considers
the bail on merits. Reliance is placed on para 6 of the
order to submit that this Court while granting bail had made
reference to the Respondent No. 1 not having criminal
antecedents and the trial is likely to take some time to
conclude. I am again unable to accept the said contention
of the Respondent No. 1 as the order dated 01.04.2024
clearly gives an impression that the Respondent No. 1
with the intent to dissuade this Court from considering the
merits made the above said offer to deposit amount in this
court. Respondent No.1 has taken the Court for granted by
securing his liberty on the basis of the undertaking dated
22.03.2024. Respondent No. 1 is attempting to approbate
and reprobate. Facts of instant case are similar to the facts
in the case of Kundan Singh (Supra) as such observations
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 10 are squarely
applicable to the case in hand. Case of the Respondent
No. 1 as now contended is nothing but reneging voluntarily
offering deposits. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Kundan Singh (supra) has deprecated such practice.
20. Mr. Kharat, relied on the case of Biman Chatterjee
(supra) to submit that now fulfillment of the terms of
compromise cannot be basis of granting or cancelling
the bail. He places reliance on the paragraph No.7 of the
said decision. Case in Biman Chatterjee (supra) was a
proposed settlement between a couple having matrimonial
discord. Bail granted to the Accused in the said crime
was cancelled on the ground that the Accused was not
adhering to the settlement terms. It is in this context that
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph-7 has made the
observations as under:
1994 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties, we are of the opinion that the High
Court was not justified in cancelling the bail
on the ground that the appellant had violated
the terms of the compromise. Though in the
original order granting bail there is a reference
to an agreement of the parties to have a talk of
compromise through the media of well wishers,
there is no submission made to the court that
there will be a compromise or that the appellant
would take back his wife. Be that as it may, in
our opinion, the courts below could not have
cancelled the bail solely on the ground that
the appellant had failed to keep up his promise
made to the court. Here we hasten to observe
first of all from the material on record, we do
not find that there was any compromise arrived
at between the parties at all, hence, question of
fulfilling the terms of such compromise does not
arise. That apart non-fulfilment of the terms of
the compromise cannot be the basis of granting
or cancelling a bail. The grant of bail under the
Criminal Procedure Code is governed by the
provision of Chapter XXXIII of the Code and the
provision therein does not contemplate either
granting of a bail on the basis of an assurance
of a compromise or cancellation of a bail for
violation of the terms of such compromise. What
the court has to bear in mind while granting bail
is what is provided for in Section 437 of the said
Code. In our opinion, having granted the bail
under the said provision of law, it is not open
to the trial court or the High Court to cancel
the same on a ground alien to the grounds
mentioned for cancellation of bail in the said
provision of law.
21. The Respondent No. 1 though having withdrawn his
Application seeking relaxation of the said bail condition
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1995
Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
No. 6(i), has not come forward to deposit the amount even
during the course of hearing of this Application. Respondent
No. 1 having breached / violated bail condition no. 6(i) of
the order dated 01.04.2024, this Court is left with no other
option but to exercise jurisdiction under Section 483(3) of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short
“BNSS”) to cancel the bail. Bail granted to the Respondent
No. 1 on 01.04.2024 stands cancelled.
22. Respondent No. 1 was released pursuant to the order
dated 01.04.2024. Bail being cancelled, the Respondent
No. 1 is now required to surrender. Mr. Kharat, on
instructions from the Respondent No. 1 prays time to
surrender. He prays for 8 weeks time to surrender.
23. Considering that the Respondent No.1 was on bail
since 01.04.2024, I find it appropriate to grant 4 weeks
time, to the Respondent No.1 to surrender before the
learned Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Satara.
Respondent No.1 to surrender before the said Court on
or before 31 July, 2025, subject to the Respondent No. 1
furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one
or more sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of
the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Satara, within
10 days from today. In the event, P.R. bond and sureties
are not furnished within the said period, learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class to act in accordance with law.
24. Interim Application No. 4524 of 2024 is allowed in the
above terms.”
14. Heard Mr. A.M. Bojor Barua, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and Mr. Prashant S. Kenjale, the learned counsel appearing
for the Respondent No.2 – complainant.
15. 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.
16. 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
1996 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
particular period and then conveniently resile from such undertakings
saying it is an onerous condition.
17. In some cases, perhaps the accused may abide by such undertaking,
but our experience so far has been that 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.
18. 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 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.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. This practice has to be stopped. Litigants are taking the courts for
a ride and thereby undermining the dignity and honor of the court.
22. We hope and trust that the High Courts as well as the Trial Courts
across the country do not commit the same mistake again.
23. 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
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1997
Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
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.
24. Be that as it may, now we have made ourselves very 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.
25. This appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
26. The Registry is directed to circulate one copy each of this order to
all the High Courts at the earliest.
27. 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.
28. 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.
Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Bail"Sign in to search