Bail cannot rest on monetary undertakings; breach of the promise can justify cancellation and bail must be decided on merits.
Bail cannot ordinarily be granted on the basis of an accused's promise to deposit money or similar financial undertaking, because bail must be decided on merits and not used as a device for financial recovery or enforcement of private claims. Where liberty was obtained on such an undertaking, deliberate breach of the condition justified cancellation of bail, as a litigant cannot retain the benefit of the order while resiling from the representation that secured it. The Court therefore left cancellation of bail undisturbed and cautioned that regular bail and anticipatory bail must not be made conditional on monetary deposits.
Issues: (i) Whether bail granted on the basis of an accused's undertaking to deposit money can be sustained when the undertaking is later breached; (ii) whether regular bail or anticipatory bail can be granted subject to a monetary deposit or similar financial undertaking.
Issue (i): Whether bail granted on the basis of an accused's undertaking to deposit money can be sustained when the undertaking is later breached.
Analysis: The accused had voluntarily filed an affidavit undertaking to deposit a specified amount to obtain bail and had secured release on that basis. The undertaking was treated as part of the basis on which liberty was granted. After taking benefit of the order, the accused did not honour the undertaking and sought to characterise the condition as onerous. The Court held that a litigant cannot accept the advantage of an order obtained on a representation and later resile from it by questioning the very condition that secured relief.
Conclusion: The breach of the undertaking justified cancellation of bail.
Issue (ii): Whether regular bail or anticipatory bail can be granted subject to a monetary deposit or similar financial undertaking.
Analysis: Bail jurisdiction must be exercised on merits and not as a mechanism for recovery of money or enforcement of private claims. A financial deposit cannot ordinarily be imposed as a condition for bail, and courts should not decide bail applications on undertakings to pay money. The Court disapproved the practice of granting liberty on such conditions and directed that bail pleas must be decided strictly on merits in accordance with law.
Conclusion: Monetary deposit cannot be the basis of granting regular bail or anticipatory bail, and such conditional orders are impermissible.
Final Conclusion: The appeal was rejected, the cancellation of bail was left undisturbed, and a binding caution was issued that bail decisions must not rest on monetary undertakings.
Ratio Decidendi: Bail cannot be granted on the basis of an accused's promise to deposit money, and where liberty has been obtained on such an undertaking, deliberate breach of that undertaking can justify cancellation of bail; bail must be determined on merits, not as a device for financial recovery.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
