A growing trend in which parties willingly offer to deposit large sums of money in exchange for bail, only to later request a relaxation of the terms by labelling them "onerous," was sharply criticised by the Supreme Court of India on Monday. According to the court, this practice is "troubling" and undermines the legal system.
A bench comprising Justices K V Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh observed that while the apex court remains conscious of the fundamental rights of an individual under Article 21 of the Constitution—which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty—it is equally bound to uphold the sanctity of judicial proceedings. “There cannot be any dispute that excessive bail is no bail, and onerous conditions ought not to be imposed while granting bail,” the bench said. However, it also noted that whether a condition is considered “onerous” must be evaluated based on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.
The court's remarks were made during the hearing of a special leave petition contesting a Madras High Court ruling concerning a petitioner who was charged with tax evasion under the 2017 Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act. The petitioner was arrested on March 27 after allegedly evading taxes totalling ₹13.73 crore.
The case was heard on May 8 after the petitioner requested bail from the Madras High Court. The petitioner's attorney stated during the hearing that the petitioner had already paid ₹2.86 crore and was prepared to adhere to any strict bail requirements. Additionally, the attorney voluntarily offered that the petitioner deposit an extra ₹2.5 crore within ten days of his release.
Also Read: SC questions HC action in Tamil Nadu ADGP's abduction case
The high court granted bail with conditions in response to this submission. To the credit of the ongoing trial court case, the petitioner was instructed to first deposit ₹50 lakh. After his release, he had ten days to deposit the remaining ₹2 crore. The petitioner was released on a ₹10 lakh bail bond after it was confirmed that ₹50 lakh had been deposited.
However, the petitioner returned to the high court on May 12 to request a modification of the bail order. It was argued that depositing ₹50 lakh prior to release was nearly impossible due to particular circumstances described in the petition. Rather, the petitioner requested permission to deposit the funds within the initially specified time frame after release.
Also Read: SC transfers Tamil Nadu's ADGP case to CB-CID
On May 14, the high court modified its earlier order, permitting the petitioner to deposit the entire ₹2.5 crore within ten days of the release. Bail's other conditions remained unchanged. The petitioner, dissatisfied, then challenged the May 14 order in the Supreme Court. In front of the highest court, the petitioner's attorney referenced earlier rulings that stated bail should not be subject to onerous financial requirements. The Supreme Court, however, voiced concern about the way in which these offers were being strategically used to obtain release, only to be contested afterwards.
“We strongly deprecate this practice,” the bench stated. “If the offer for monetary deposit had not been made at the outset, the high court may have considered the case on merits and either granted or denied relief accordingly. But by making the voluntary offer, and later challenging it, the petitioner is attempting to game the system.”
The Supreme Court also noted that once the petitioner secured release based on the high court’s order, it became problematic to retract the monetary commitments made in court. While the bench considered setting aside both the May 8 and May 14 orders, it ultimately chose to uphold the May 14 order, requiring the petitioner to deposit ₹2.5 crore within 10 days from the date of release, as per the modified terms.
The verdict highlights the Supreme Court’s firm stance against manipulating judicial discretion during bail hearings and reinforces the principle that bail jurisprudence must remain rooted in equity, fairness, and good faith.
Also Read: SC advocates flag 'ED summons' issue, ask CJI to intervene
Follow us
