“No Bail on Deposit” – The New Mandate from the Supreme Court of India

Introduction

The judgment in Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2025 INSC 913) marks a watershed moment in Indian criminal procedural law. Responding to an increasingly common practice of conditioning bail on large monetary deposits or undertakings, the Supreme Court has categorically prohibited all trial courts and High Courts from linking liberty to financial payments. The case began as a dispute over alleged misappropriation of ₹1.6 crore by the appellant while working for the complainant’s advertising and training business. After securing bail from the Bombay High Court by undertaking to deposit ₹25 lakh—and later reneging—the appellant faced cancellation of bail. His challenge before the Supreme Court prompted the Court to lay down a binding, nation-wide rule disallowing monetary-deposit conditions in bail or anticipatory-bail orders.

Summary of the Judgment

• Appeal Dismissed: The Supreme Court upheld cancellation of the appellant’s bail and imposed costs of ₹50,000 for abusing court process.
• New Binding Direction: No trial court or High Court shall, henceforth, grant regular bail or anticipatory bail on the basis of any monetary deposit, undertaking, or promise by an accused. Bail applications must be decided strictly on merits.
• Administrative Step: Registry ordered to circulate the ruling to all High Courts.
• Opportunity Preserved: Appellant may apply afresh for bail, to be considered solely on merits.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

1. Ramesh Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi – reiterated that criminal courts are not recovery agents; financial conditions unsupported by statute are impermissible.
2. Apurva Kirti Mehta v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. – emphasised constitutional right to personal liberty; bail cannot be made contingent on heavy deposits.
3. Kundan Singh v. Superintendent of CGST & Central Excise – condemned the practice of accused offering deposits to secure bail and later reneging. Supreme Court warned against “approbating and reprobating.”
4. Biman Chatterjee v. Sanchita Chatterjee & Anr. – held that breach of compromise terms alone cannot justify cancellation of bail, but distinguished on facts.

While earlier cases cautioned against onerous bail conditions, none laid down an absolute prohibition. The present judgment converts the caution into a blanket rule, elevating the advisory nature of those precedents to a mandatory directive.

B. Legal Reasoning

• Constitutional Lens: The Court grounded its reasoning in Article 21, highlighting that liberty cannot be “bought” and that requiring money as a pre-condition offends equality and due process.
• Statutory Framework: Chapter XXXIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now mirrored in Chapter XXXIII of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) specifies permissible bail considerations—financial deposit is not one of them.
• Abuse of Process: The appellant’s conduct—volunteering to deposit funds, getting bail, then defaulting—demonstrated how such undertakings can undermine judicial authority and delay justice.
• Systemic Concern: Referring to “many cases” with similar patterns, the Bench converted an individual appeal into an occasion for setting a universal rule to restore dignity of courts.
• Prospective & Binding Effect: Directions issued under Article 142 create nationwide precedent, binding on all courts until Parliament legislates otherwise.

C. Impact

1. Uniform Bail Practice: Courts must now decide bail strictly on statutory parameters (nature of offence, severity, flight risk, evidence tampering), eliminating regional disparities created by deposit-based orders.
2. Access to Justice: Indigent accused, previously unable to meet heavy monetary conditions, stand to benefit directly.
3. Professional Ethics: The judgment rebukes advocates who draft extravagant undertakings merely to secure interim relief, reinforcing ethical duty toward candour.
4. Administrative Clarity: By ordering circulation to High Courts, the Court ensures immediate adoption, reducing future litigation over similar issues.
5. Potential Legislative Dialogue: Parliament may reassess CrPC/BNSS provisions relating to sureties and bonds, possibly codifying or refining permissible financial conditions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Regular Bail vs. Anticipatory Bail: Regular bail is sought after arrest; anticipatory bail is pre-arrest protection under §438 CrPC (now §482 BNSS).
• Onerous Condition: A bail condition so tough (financially or otherwise) that it effectively denies liberty. Supreme Court equates “excessive bail” with “no bail.”
• Undertaking: A solemn promise given to a court, breach of which can attract contempt or cancellation of relief. The Court highlighted misuse of self-serving undertakings.
• Approbate and Reprobate: A party cannot simultaneously accept and reject the same judgment or condition; doing so is frowned upon in law.
• Article 142 Power: Enables Supreme Court to pass any order necessary for “complete justice,” allowing it to set binding guidelines in appropriate cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Gajanan Dattatray Gore is more than a routine dismissal of an individual’s appeal—it is a systemic correction. By outlawing monetary-deposit conditions in all bail orders, the Court places liberty back on its rightful constitutional pedestal and curbs a practice that had blurred the line between criminal justice and debt recovery. The judgment clarifies that:

“Liberty must be evaluated by law, not bought by money.”

Courts across India must now assess bail solely on statutory and constitutional criteria, ensuring uniformity, fairness, and respect for the rule of law. This precedent is poised to influence innumerable bail hearings, protect economically weaker litigants, and reinforce the judiciary’s commitment to principled decision-making.