The Supreme Court on Monday expressed strong disapproval of a growing trend where accused persons voluntarily offer to deposit large sums of money to secure bail, only to later challenge those very conditions as “onerous” and seek their relaxation.
A bench comprising Justices K.V. Viswanathan and N. Kotiswar Singh made the remarks while hearing a plea challenging a bail condition imposed by the Madras High Court in a case involving alleged tax evasion of ₹13.73 crore under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.
The top court observed that while it remained mindful of individual liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, it must also uphold the “sanctity of the judicial process.” “There cannot be any dispute that excessive bail is no bail and onerous conditions ought not to be imposed while bail is granted,” the bench stated, adding that whether a bail condition is onerous would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
The petitioner, arrested on March 27 for alleged GST evasion, had approached the Madras High Court for bail. During the hearing on May 8, his counsel submitted that ₹2.86 crore had already been deposited and that the petitioner was willing to comply with any stringent conditions, including an additional ₹2.50 crore deposit within 10 days of release.
Taking this offer into account, the high court granted bail on the condition that ₹50 lakh be deposited before release, with the remaining ₹2 crore to be paid within 10 days post-release. Following partial compliance, the petitioner was released on a ₹10 lakh bail bond.
However, just days later, the petitioner sought a modification of the bail condition, citing inability to deposit the initial ₹50 lakh prior to release. The high court modified its order on May 14, permitting the entire ₹2.50 crore to be deposited within 10 days of release. Other conditions remained intact.
Challenging this modified order before the apex court, the petitioner argued that such monetary conditions were excessive and cited various precedents.
The Supreme Court, while acknowledging that monetary conditions should not be used to deny bail, strongly criticized the strategy of initially offering large deposits only to renege later. “We strongly deprecate this practice. If the offer for monetary deposit had not been made at the outset, the High Court may have considered the case on merits,” the bench remarked.
Noting that the petitioner had already secured release under the High Court’s modified order, the apex court declined to interfere and upheld the May 14 directive requiring the deposit of ₹2.50 crore within 10 days of release.
