Summary
An accused obtained regular bail from the High Court on his own affidavit-cum-undertaking to deposit Rs. 25,00,000 within five months, failed to deposit, and then argued that the condition was onerous; the High Court cancelled his bail. The Court dismissed his appeal with costs, refused to examine the bail plea on merits, and directed that henceforth no trial court or High Court shall grant regular or anticipatory bail on the basis of any undertaking by the accused or his family to deposit an amount; bail pleas must be decided strictly on merits.
Issues
- Whether the High Court was justified in cancelling bail that had been granted on the strength of the accused's own undertaking to deposit Rs. 25,00,000, after he failed to deposit the amount.
- Whether courts may grant regular or anticipatory bail on the basis of an undertaking by the accused to deposit a sum of money.
Held
- The Court has noticed that High Courts pass orders of regular and anticipatory bail subject to deposit of amounts, with accused persons filing affidavit-undertakings to deposit and then conveniently resiling by calling the condition onerous, denying having made the statement, or blaming their lawyer; in such cases the court is left with no option but to cancel the bail at the instance of the State or the complainant. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17)
- The appellant of his own free will filed an affidavit-undertaking before the High Court to deposit Rs. 25,00,000 and then resiled, so the High Court had to cancel the bail; it was too much for his lawyer to argue that asking him to deposit the amount was unreasonable, which reflects on professional ethics. (¶ 18)
- By way of directions, henceforth no trial court or High Court shall pass any order granting regular or anticipatory bail on any undertaking that the accused, or his or her family members, may offer to deposit a particular amount. Bail pleas are to be decided strictly on merits in accordance with law; if a case is made out the court may exercise its discretion, and if not it shall reject the plea, but in no circumstance shall a conditional order of this kind be passed. The practice must stop because litigants are taking courts for a ride. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 24)
- The Court declined to consider the appellant's plea for regular bail, holding that he had made a mockery of justice and abused the process of law; if the High Court wished to release him on deposit it should first have required the deposit within a fixed time and released him only upon deposit. (¶ 23)
- Once the appellant surrenders and is taken into judicial custody he may file a fresh regular bail application, to be decided strictly on its own merits. (¶ 27)
Result
Appeal dismissed; the Registry directed to circulate the order to all High Courts; costs of Rs. 50,000 imposed on the appellant for gross abuse of process, to be deposited within one week with the Supreme Court Mediation Centre with compliance reported; liberty to file a fresh regular bail application after surrender, to be decided on merits.