New Delhi, June 23 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Monday strongly condemned the increasing trend of accused individuals securing bail by voluntarily offering to deposit large sums of money and later reneging on those promises by challenging the conditions as “onerous” or claiming their lawyers lacked authority to make such offers.

A bench, comprising Justices K V Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh, while hearing a bail plea in a CGST evasion case, said, “We strongly deprecate this practice... We have to be conscious of the sanctity of the judicial process.We cannot allow parties to play tricks with the Court or permit them to take advantage of devices they themselves resort to in order to secure bail.”

The Court observed that such tactics were becoming "commonplace" and undermined the High Courts’ ability to decide bail applications purely on merit.

It clarified that while excessive or harsh bail conditions must be avoided, parties cannot exploit the judicial process by making voluntary financial offers and later withdrawing them under the pretext that the condition was illegal or unauthorized.

The remarks came while hearing a petition filed by an accused under the CGST Act, alleged to have evaded taxes amounting to Rs 13.7 crore.

The petitioner, arrested on March 27, 2025, had earlier approached the Madras High Court for bail.

His counsel informed the court that the petitioner had already deposited Rs 2.8 crore and was willing to deposit another Rs 2.5 crore without prejudice to his legal rights.

The High Court granted bail based on this voluntary offer and later modified the order to allow payment of the Rs 2.5 crore after release.

However, the petitioner subsequently failed to comply and challenged the bail condition before the Supreme Court, contending that the financial condition was excessive and that the earlier counsel lacked authority to make such an offer.

Rejecting this argument, the Supreme Court noted that no such claim regarding unauthorized counsel was made in the petitioner’s modification application before the High Court.

“If the offer for monetary deposit had not been made at the outset, the High Court may have considered the case on merits and granted or denied bail accordingly. The petitioner is now approbating and reprobating,” the bench remarked.

Initially, the top court set aside the High Court's orders, directed the petitioner to surrender before the trial court within a week, and remanded the matter back to the High Court for reconsideration on merits.

However, taking into account new facts presented in the modification plea, specifically the petitioner’s wife's pregnancy and his aged father’s care, the Court agreed to maintain the monetary condition as an interim measure for his release on bail.

Senior Advocate V Chidambaresh and Advocate-on-Record Aswathi M K appeared for the petitioner.

UNI SNG SS