2025 (7) TMI 1966 - SC - Indian Laws

Bail conditioned on an undertaking to deposit money is prohibited; bail must be decided strictly on merits, not on monetary promises.

Granting regular or anticipatory bail based on an accused or family undertaking to deposit a specified sum is prohibited; courts must decide bail strictly ... Grant of regular bail or anticipatory bail on the basis of an undertaking to deposit money - cancellation of bail for breach of undertaking - excessive or onerous bail conditions - abuse of the process of court - High Courts and Trial Courts to decide bail strictly on merits - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483(3) - HELD THAT:- 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. 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. 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. This appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Issues: Whether a regular bail order granted on the basis of the accused's affidavit/undertaking to deposit a specified sum can be cancelled for breach of that undertaking, and whether courts may grant regular or anticipatory bail based on such undertakings to deposit money.Analysis: The order analyses the interplay between (i) the settled principle that grant of bail must ordinarily be decided on merits under the statutory bail regime and (ii) the effect of a voluntary undertaking given by an accused to deposit money as part of the bail process. The judgment recognises that ordinarily financial deposit as a condition for bail is not a mode of recovery and courts should decide bail pleas on merits in accordance with relevant statutory provisions. However, where an accused, of his own volition, offers an undertaking to deposit money and thereby induces the court to forego consideration of merits, the accused cannot later resile from that undertaking. In such circumstances the court may treat breach of the undertaking as a ground to exercise statutory jurisdiction to cancel bail; the impugned order relied on the statutory provision invoked by the High Court to cancel bail for breach of the undertaking and to direct surrender. The judgment further directs that High Courts and trial courts shall not grant regular or anticipatory bail on the basis of undertakings to deposit money and must decide bail applications strictly on merits.Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed; the cancellation of bail for breach of the undertaking is upheld and the directive that courts must not grant regular or anticipatory bail based on undertakings to deposit money is affirmed (resulting in dismissal of the appellant's appeal and imposition of costs in favour of the respondent).