New Delhi: In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has prohibited all trial courts and High Courts from granting regular or anticipatory bail based on an accused person’s undertaking to deposit a sum of money. The judgment, delivered in the case of Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr., addresses a growing practice that the Court deemed undermines the judicial process.
The case involved Gajanan Dattatray Gore, who was accused of misappropriating approximately Rs. 1.60 crore. Initially, the Bombay High Court had granted him bail on April 1, 2024, after he filed an affidavit voluntarily undertaking to deposit Rs. 25 lakh to demonstrate his bona fides.
However, Gore failed to deposit the amount after being released. This led the original complainant to file for the cancellation of his bail. Subsequently, on July 1, 2025, the High Court modified its earlier order and directed Gore to surrender.
Gore then appealed to the Supreme Court, where his counsel argued that the condition to deposit the amount was “unreasonable.”
The Supreme Court, in its order dated July 28, 2025, delivered by Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, took a firm stance against the practice of linking bail with monetary deposits. The Court observed a troubling trend where accused individuals secure bail by promising to deposit money and then back out of their commitment, often blaming their lawyers or arguing the condition is too burdensome.
“Litigants are taking the courts for a ride and thereby undermining the dignity and honor of the court,” the judgment stated. The bench noted that such undertakings prevent the courts from deciding bail applications on their actual merits.
The Supreme Court issued a clear directive to all lower courts: “henceforth 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.” Bail applications, the Court asserted, must be decided “strictly on the merits of the case.”
The Court strongly deprecated the conduct of the appellant, stating he had “made a mockery of justice” and “abused the process of law.” For this, a cost of Rs. 50,000 was imposed on the appellant.
While dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court clarified that once the appellant surrenders, he is free to file a fresh bail application, which must be considered on its own merits without reference to the prior undertaking. The Registry was directed to circulate the order to all High Courts to ensure compliance.
