SC Criticises Accused Offering Huge Sums for Bail Only to Dispute It Later
Court cancelled bail as the accused had secured it before the high court on his own Rs. 50 lakh deposit undertaking in two cases, but later reneged and challenged the condition
The Supreme Court has deprecated the growing trend of accused persons offering to deposit large sums of money before high courts to secure bail, only to later challenge such monetary conditions as onerous and uncalled for.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma cancelled the bail granted by the Gujarat High Court to appellant Ashish Navalkumar Sureka on his own undertaking to deposit Rs 50 lakh each in two cases, saying he could not be allowed to approbate and reprobate to suit his own convenience.
Though the counsel for the appellant, having argued for considerable time, sought leave to withdraw these cases, the bench said, "We are of the opinion a decision on merits is warranted, given the telling facts that speak for themselves".
The grievance of the appellant in these matters was that the high court imposed an onerous condition at the time he was granted regular bail in connection with two separate criminal cases.
The apex court noted that perusal of the impugned orders passed by the high court reflected that the advocate who appeared on behalf of the appellant stated before the court that the appellant was ready and willing to deposit a sum of 50,00,000 in each of the cases within a period of six months from the date of his release. Accepting and acting upon the said offer, the high court granted bail to the appellant in both the cases, subject to various conditions.
Though the counsel for the appellant did not wish to commit himself as to whether the appellant filed such undertakings, he admitted that the appellant was presently out on bail.
"This clearly implies that the appellant did file the undertakings, as that was a condition precedent for his release on bail,'' the bench said.
The appellant's counsel contended that, notwithstanding the offer, if any, made on his behalf before the high court, the high court was not justified in imposing an onerous condition of deposit of money as a condition precedent for availing the benefit of bail.
He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2023), which was also a case where an undertaking was given before the high court but, thereafter, a complaint was made before the Supreme Court as to the onerous nature of a condition for deposit of money. The Supreme Court observed that such undertakings should be accepted only in cases involving public monies.
The bench, however, said, notwithstanding the law laid down by this court in the aforesaid decision, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the practice of the accused in matters of this nature securing bail from the high courts by offering to deposit monies and thereafter assailing such condition as onerous and uncalled for is on the increase.
"The appellant before us also secured bail from the High Court by making an offer and acting upon the said offer, by filing undertakings. He cannot have the benefit of the bail granted on the basis of his offer being accepted, if he has a grievance with the condition imposed by the High Court acting upon that offer. The appellant cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate to suit his own convenience,'' the bench said.
Court set aside the orders passed by the high court and restored the bail petitions on the file of the high court for consideration afresh on their own merits and in accordance with law, as the appellant had admittedly not deposited any money in terms of his undertakings and assailed the condition imposed at his own instance.
The court said it would also be open to the appellant to file applications for early disposal thereof. The appellant, who is out on bail pursuant to the impugned orders, shall surrender within a period of ten days, it ordered.
Case Title: Ashish Navalkumar Sureka Vs State of Gujarat
Judgment Date: July 22, 2025
Bench: Justices Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma
Next Story