Supreme Court directs courts not to grant bail on undertakings by accused to deposit money

The Supreme Court recently directed all High Courts and trial courts across the country to refrain from granting regular or anticipatory bail solely based on an undertaking by the accused or their family members to deposit a specific amount [Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. State of Maharashtra]..A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan remarked,"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...This practice has to be stopped. Litigants are taking the courts for a ride and thereby undermining the dignity and honor of the court.".High Courts and trial courts shall decide pleas for regular bail or anticipatory bail strictly on the merits of the case, the Court added."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...We hope and trust that the High Courts as well as the Trial Courts across the country do not commit the same mistake again," the Court observed..The Court was hearing an appeal by one Gajanan Dattatray Gore against a Bombay High Court order which modified an earlier order by which he was granted bail.Gore was arrested in connection with a criminal case related to the alleged misappropriation of ₹1.6 crore.The High Court had initially granted him bail on the condition that he would deposit ₹25 lakh in the trial court, as per his affidavit-cum-undertaking. However, after securing release, Gore failed to fulfill this undertaking. Consequently, the complainant in the case filed an interim application seeking cancellation of Gore's bail. The High Court, finding merit in the application, modified its earlier order and directed Gore to surrender before the Judicial Magistrate, Satara, within four weeks..During the hearing of the appeal, the Supreme Court observed that over a period of time, various High Courts have been passing orders of regular bail and anticipatory bail subject to the deposit of certain amounts.The Court observed that while in some cases the accused may comply with the undertaking to deposit a certain amount, in many instances they fail to do so. Often, it is argued that the accused never made such a statement and that the court recorded it on its own, or the blame is entirely shifted onto the lawyer for having made the statement merely to secure an order of regular or anticipatory bail, the Court noted."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 top court remarked..The Court further added that the present case is one where the appellant, of his own free will, filed an affidavit before the High Court undertaking to deposit ₹25 lakh, but later failed to honour it, compelling the High Court to cancel the bail.It was inappropriate for Gore's lawyer to argue that the direction to deposit the amount was unreasonable, as it not only contradicted the earlier voluntary undertaking, but also raised concerns about professional ethics, the Court noted."...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 while dismissing the appeal.It also imposed costs of ₹50,000 on Gore for gross abuse of the process of law and for taking the High Court for a ride..Advocate AM Bojor Barua appeared for the appellant.Advocate Prashant S Kenjale appeared for the respondent..[Read Order]