2025 INSC 913 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3219/2025

(@Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.10749/2025)

GAJANAN DATTATRAY GORE Appellant(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. Respondent(s)

O R D E R

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

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”).

2

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, 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:-

3

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 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 furnish

ing 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

4

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 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 ap -

pellant got himself released on bail but failed to deposit the

5

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.

13.We deem it appropriate to incorporate the entire impugned or -

der 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.

6

(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 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:-

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.

7

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:-

"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

8

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 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

9

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. 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 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

10

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 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

11

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:

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 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

12

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

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

13

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.

14

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 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.

15

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.

…………………………………………J

(J.B. PARDIWALA)

…………………………………………J

(R. MAHADEVAN)

NEW DELHI

28TH JULY, 2025.