The Supreme Court set aside the Jharkhand High Court’s conditional bail orders, reiterating that anticipatory bail cannot be made conditional upon the deposit of a disputed amount. The Court held that bail must be decided on merits alone and criminal courts cannot function as money recovery forums.
Should the grant of bail, whether regular or anticipatory, be made conditional upon the deposit of money by the accused?
This question, though settled in principle by the Supreme Court on more than one occasion, continues to arise in courtrooms across the country. In Prantik Kumar & Anr. v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr., the Supreme Court recently address this issue again, and reiterated that bail must be adjudicated strictly on merits and that conditioning it upon monetary deposits is impermissible in law.
A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan, set aside two orders of the Jharkhand High Court that had required the accused persons to deposit a disputed commercial amount as a precondition for the consideration of their anticipatory bail application.
The case concerned a father and son who were accused in a cheating case in Jharkhand, for offences under sections 406, 420, 504, 506 and 120B read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The dispute arose out of a commercial transaction relating to the supply of craft paper, with the complainant alleging that approximately Rs. 9,12,926.84 remained unpaid.
The petitioners first approached the sessions court seeking anticipatory bail, but their application was rejected. They then moved the Jharkhand High Court, which passed an order on January 13, 2025, and directed them to file a supplementary affidavit showing payment of the disputed amount to the complainant, failing which the anticipatory bail application would stand dismissed.
A similar course was adopted in a subsequent order dated 14 November 2025, passed in the restoration petition, again requiring proof of payment with automatic dismissal for default.
The anticipatory bail application was consequently dismissed for non-compliance, and the petitioners later filed a restoration petition. In a subsequent order dated November 14, 2025, the court adopted a similar course, once again requiring proof of payment with automatic dismissal for default.
Aggrieved by both these orders, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition. The Bench noted that the approach adopted by the Jharkhand High Court was at variance with the Supreme Court’s judgment in Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. State of Maharashtra (2025).
In Gajanan Dattaray, the Court had laid down a binding, nationwide direction that no trial court or High Court shall grant regular or anticipatory bail based on any undertaking by the accused to deposit money. The Supreme Court had, while dismissing the accused’s appeal, imposed costs of Rs. 50,000, and deprecated the growing trend of “accused persons taking courts for a ride” by offering monetary undertakings they never intended to honour.
It was in this context that the Bench in Prantik Kumar expressed its disappointment. Justice Pardiwala observed that, “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.”
The principle reiterated by the Court is significant in its breadth. The Bench made it clear that if a case for the grant of bail or anticipatory bail is made out on merits, the court should proceed to pass an appropriate order. If it is not made out, the court may decline. What courts cannot do, however, is pass a conditional order requiring deposit of a particular amount and then exercise discretion on that basis.
The Court’s disapproval was not confined to the mere imposition of a monetary condition. As the Gajanan Dattatray Gore judgment had clarified, the jurisdiction to grant or refuse bail must be exercised strictly on the merits of the case, and criminal courts cannot permit bail proceedings to assume the character of money recovery or enforcement of alleged civil dues.
Even voluntary undertakings or assurances by an accused to deposit a particular amount cannot constitute the basis for granting or considering bail, as such an approach forecloses adjudication on merits and undermines the distinction between civil and criminal remedies.
Having set aside both the impugned orders, the Court directed that in the event of their arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail subject to such terms and conditions as the investigating officer may deem fit to impose.
Upon release, they were directed to appear before the concerned court and furnish bail bonds. The Court also directed the Registry to forward a copy of its order to the Registrar General of the Jharkhand High Court, with a further direction that it be placed before the Chief Justice.
This direction mirrored the approach adopted in Gajanan Dattatray Gore, where the Court had similarly directed its Registry to circulate the order to all High Courts across the country, underscoring the institutional weight the Supreme Court has placed on ensuring compliance with this principle.
The order in Prantik Kumar is a reiteration, not a new pronouncement. Yet the fact that it had to be reiterated at all, barely months after Gajanan Dattatray Gore, speaks to the persistence of the practice it seeks to curb.
The principle that bail is a matter of personal liberty and must be decided on merits, not monetary capacity, now stands reinforced by a growing line of Supreme Court authority, including Ramesh Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi (2023), Apurva Kirti Mehta v. State of Maharashtra, and the Gajanan Dattatray Gore judgment itself.
Case title: Prantik Kumar & Anr. v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. | SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 4297/2026
FAQs
1. Can a court impose a condition of depositing money while granting anticipatory bail?
No. The Supreme Court has categorically held that the grant of regular or anticipatory bail cannot be made conditional upon the deposit of any amount. Bail must be adjudicated strictly on the merits of the case, and courts cannot convert bail proceedings into money recovery mechanisms.
2. What did the Supreme Court hold in Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. State of Maharashtra (2025)?
The Supreme Court directed all High Courts and trial courts across India not to grant bail based on any undertaking by the accused to deposit money. The Court held that bail must be decided on merits alone, and that litigants offering monetary undertakings and later reneging were undermining the dignity of courts.
3. Can an accused person’s voluntary undertaking to deposit money form the basis for granting bail?
No. The Supreme Court has made it clear that even voluntary undertakings or assurances by an accused to deposit a particular amount cannot constitute the basis for granting or considering bail. Such an approach forecloses adjudication on merits and amounts to a misuse of judicial discretion.
4. What happens if an anticipatory bail application is dismissed for failure to deposit the disputed amount?
Such a dismissal would be contrary to settled law. The Supreme Court has held that if a case for bail is made out, the court should grant it, and if not, it may decline. However, the court cannot pass a conditional order requiring deposit of a particular amount and then exercise its discretion based on compliance or non-compliance.
5. Can criminal courts use bail proceedings to recover disputed amounts on behalf of the complainant?
No. The Supreme Court has reiterated that criminal courts cannot permit bail proceedings to assume the character of money recovery or enforcement of alleged civil dues. The jurisdiction to grant or refuse bail must remain distinct from civil remedies, and conditioning bail upon payment of disputed amounts blurs this distinction impermissibly.
Leave a Reply