The Supreme Court has laid down clear directions against monetary undertakings for bail and has further reprimanded abuse of judicial process in bail matters.
In this case the appellant, Gajanan Dattatray Gore, was arrested on 17 August 2023 in connection with Crime No. 652 of 2023 registered at Satara City Police Station, Maharashtra, for multiple offences under the Indian Penal Code including Sections 406, 408, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, and 506 read with Section 34.
Gore was accused of misappropriating ₹1.66 crore from Satara Advertising Company and I-Can Training Institute, where he was employed as a business development manager. After the trial court denied him regular bail, he moved the Bombay High Court through Bail Application No. 445/2024.
On 1 April 2024, the High Court granted Gore bail based on a voluntary affidavit-cum-undertaking dated 22 March 2024, wherein he undertook to deposit ₹25 lakh within five months. The bail order was conditional upon this deposit, and also restrained Gore from using the name or logo of the I-Can Institute.
Failure to Honour Undertaking and Cancellation of Bail
Despite securing bail, Gore failed to deposit the promised amount. Consequently, the complainant (Respondent No. 2), represented by advocate Mr. Ganesh Gole, moved the High Court for cancellation of bail through Interim Application No. 4524 of 2024.
On 1 July 2025, the High Court cancelled Gore’s bail, noting that:
- The bail was granted solely on the undertaking of monetary deposit.
- The appellant’s conduct foreclosed any examination of the bail plea on merits.
- He had taken advantage of the judicial process and then tried to argue that the condition was “onerous”.
The High Court rejected Gore’s contention that the deposit condition was excessive, and relied on Supreme Court precedent in Kundan Singh v. Superintendent of CGST and Central Excise to deprecate the practice of reneging on bail-related undertakings.
Legal Issues and Supreme Court’s Determination
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant challenged the cancellation order. Represented by Mr. A.M. Bojor Barua, Gore contended that the bail condition was unreasonable and that the High Court should have considered his application on merits.
The Supreme Court, however, firmly upheld the High Court’s order and seized the opportunity to issue categorical directions to all courts across the country.
Key Observations and Directions:
- No Undertaking-Based Bail Orders:
“No Trial Court or any of the High Courts shall pass any order of grant of regular bail or anticipatory bail on any undertaking that the accused might be ready to furnish for the purpose of obtaining appropriate reliefs.” - Merit-Only Approach:
“The High Courts and the Trial Courts shall decide the plea for regular bail or anticipatory bail strictly on the merits of the case.” - Judicial Sanctity Must Be Preserved:
The Court expressed concern that litigants are “taking the courts for a ride and thereby undermining the dignity and honour of the court.” - Critique of Legal Strategy:
The Court rebuked the appellant for making a mockery of the judicial process by first submitting an affidavit and later disowning it, noting that it “reflects on professional ethics.”
Conclusion and Outcome
- The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
- Imposed ₹50,000 costs on the appellant for abuse of the legal process, to be deposited with the Supreme Court Mediation Centre within one week.
- Directed circulation of this order to all High Courts.
- Granted liberty to the appellant to file a fresh bail application strictly on merits after surrendering.
Advocates:
- For Appellant: Mr. A.M. Bojor Barua
- For Respondent No. 2 (Complainant): Mr. Prashant S. Kenjale
- Before High Court: Mr. Ganesh Gole (complainant), Mr. Shailesh Kharat (accused), Mrs. Veera Shinde, APP (State)
Case Details:
Criminal Appeal No. 3219 of 2025
(@ Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 10749 of 2025)
Gajanan Dattatray Gore vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Coram: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
