SC Deprecates Practice Of Accused Offering To Deposit Huge Amount To Secure Bail, Subsequently Assailing Condition

The Supreme Court has deprecated the growing trend of accused persons offering to deposit large sums of money before the High Courts to secure bail, only to later challenge the very condition as onerous and unjustified.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma cancelled the bail granted by the Gujarat High Court to appellant, who had undertaken to deposit Rs. 50 lakh in each of two criminal cases. The Court held that he could not be permitted to approbate and reprobate to suit his convenience.

Though the appellant's counsel, after arguing at length, sought leave to withdraw the cases, the bench observed, "We are of the opinion a decision on merits is warranted, given the telling facts that speak for themselves."

The appellant’s grievance was that the High Court had imposed an onerous monetary condition while granting him regular bail in two separate cases. However, the Supreme Court noted that the impugned orders clearly recorded the submission made by the appellant’s counsel that he was ready and willing to deposit Rs. 50 lakh in each case within six months of his release.

Acting on this voluntary offer, the High Court granted him bail subject to several conditions, one of which was that he would file an undertaking at the time of release to deposit the amount within the stipulated period.

While the appellant’s counsel before the Supreme Court did not confirm whether such undertakings were indeed filed, he admitted that the appellant was presently out on bail. The bench observed that this “clearly implies” the undertakings were filed, as they were a condition precedent for release.

The appellant contended that regardless of any offer made on his behalf, the High Court was not justified in imposing a monetary deposit as a precondition for bail. He relied on the 2023 judgment in Ramesh Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi, where the Top Court had held that such undertakings should be accepted only in cases involving public money.

The bench, however, noted that while the legal principle in Ramesh Kumar stands, the increasing practice of securing bail by voluntarily offering to deposit money and later calling the condition excessive could not be ignored.

“The appellant before us also secured bail from the High Court by making an offer and acting upon it by filing undertakings. He cannot enjoy the benefit of bail granted on the basis of an offer he made and later claim that the condition imposed was unjustified. The appellant cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate to suit his own convenience,” the bench held.

Since the appellant had admittedly failed to deposit any money in terms of his undertakings and was challenging a condition he himself had proposed, the Supreme Court set aside the bail orders and restored the petitions, Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 21383/2024 and 21380/2024, before the High Court for fresh consideration on their own merits and in accordance with law.

The Court also clarified that the appellant may move applications seeking early disposal of the matters. However, it directed that the appellant, currently out on bail pursuant to the impugned orders, must surrender within ten days.

Case Title: Ashish Navalkumar Sureka v. State of Gujarat

Order Date: July 22, 2025

Bench: Justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma