The Supreme Court has criticized the Jharkhand High Court for imposing a condition of payment of over Rs. 9 lakh for the grant of anticipatory bail, terming the High Court’s orders “very unusual” and the situation “very unfortunate.”
The Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, in the case of Prantik Kumar & Anr. vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr., reiterated the settled legal principle that the grant of regular bail or anticipatory bail should not be subject to the deposit of any amount. The Court set aside the High Court’s condition and granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners, a father and son.
Background of the Case
The petitioners approached the Supreme Court after being denied anticipatory bail by the Jharkhand High Court in connection with First Information Report (FIR) No. 0184 dated June 10, 2023, registered at Adityapur Police Station.
The FIR was lodged for offences punishable under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), 504 (intentional insult), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The dispute arose from a business transaction involving the purchase of craft papers. The first informant, claiming to be an unpaid seller, alleged that an amount of approximately Rs. 9,00,000 remained due and payable by the petitioners. Consequently, the FIR was lodged alleging cheating and other offences.
High Court’s “Unusual” Orders
The petitioners initially moved the Sessions Court for anticipatory bail, which was declined. They subsequently approached the High Court of Jharkhand.
The Supreme Court noted that the High Court passed “two very unusual orders” regarding the bail application and a related Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (Cr.M.P.).
In its order dated January 13, 2025, the High Court directed the petitioners to file a supplementary affidavit showing payment of Rs. 9,12,926.84 to the complainant. The order stated:
“It is made clear that, if the said supplementary affidavit is not filed within two weeks from the date of this order, this anticipatory bail application shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench.”
Similarly, in an order dated November 14, 2025, regarding the Cr.M.P., the High Court granted time to file proof of payment, again warning that failure to do so would result in dismissal “without further reference to the Bench.”
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Apex Court expressed strong disapproval of the High Court’s approach, noting that it was oblivious to the direct judgment of the Supreme Court in Gajanan Dattatray Gore vs. State of Maharashtra & Another (2025) SCC Online 1571.
Justice Pardiwala, writing for the Bench, observed:
“It is very unfortunate that despite this Court saying in so many words that grant of regular bail or the anticipatory bail should not be subject to deposit of any amount, the High Court has said that the petitioners should deposit the balance amount of Rs.9,12,926.84.”
Referring to the precedent in Gajanan Dattatray Gore, the Court clarified the legal position:
“In our Judgment, referred to above, we made ourselves very clear that if a case for grant of bail or anticipatory bail is made out, then the Court should proceed to pass an appropriate order and if not made out, the Court may decline, however, Court should not pass a conditional order of deposit of a particular amount and then exercise its discretion.”
The Decision
In light of the facts, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
The Court directed:
“In the facts and circumstances of this case, we direct that in the event of arrest of the petitioners in connection with the FIR, referred to above, they shall be released on bail, subject to terms and conditions that the Investigating Officer may deem fit to impose.”
Furthermore, the Court directed the Registry to forward a copy of the order to the Registrar General of the High Court of Jharkhand, with instructions to place the order before the Chief Justice of the High Court, presumably to ensure judicial officers are sensitized to the Supreme Court’s mandate against money-deposit bail conditions.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Prantik Kumar & Anr. vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.
- Case Number: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 4297/2026
- Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
