+ New Delhi, Jul 31 (PTI) The Supreme Court has directed the high courts and trial courts not to pass orders granting bail on any undertaking by an accused or their family members to deposit a particular amount, saying this practice has to be stopped.
Observing that litigants are taking the “courts for a ride”, a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said the high courts and trial courts shall decide the plea for regular or anticipatory bail strictly on the merits of case.
“By this order, we make it clear and that too in the form of directions that 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,” the bench said.
The apex court passed the order on July 28 while dealing with an appeal challenging an order of the Bombay High Court which directed an accused, who was earlier granted bail in a cheating case, to surrender within four weeks.
The accused was granted bail after he had filed an affidavit-cum-undertaking in the high court stating that he was willing to deposit Rs 25 lakh.
The apex court noted the accused got himself released on bail but failed to deposit the amount as undertaken by him before the high court on oath.
It further noted that later, the complainant filed an application before the high court seeking cancellation of the bail.
“We have noticed over a period of time that orders of regular bail and anticipatory bail are being passed by different high courts subject to deposit of some amount,” the bench said.
It said in some cases, perhaps the accused might abide by such undertaking, but the experience so far was that in many cases, the accused later would flout the undertaking.
The bench said in many cases, it was argued by accused that he had never made such a statement and the court on its own had recorded in the order that he was ready and willing to deposit a particular amount.
“At times the entire blame is thrown on the lawyer in making such statement for the purpose of obtaining order of bail or anticipatory bail as the case may be,” it noted.
Dealing with the case, the bench said the appellant on his own free will and volition had filed an affidavit in the form of an undertaking before the high court that he would deposit Rs 25 lakh but ultimately resiled to do so.
“The high courts and the trial courts shall not exercise their discretion in this regard on any undertaking or any statement that the accused may be ready and willing to make,” it said.
“This practice has to be stopped. Litigants are taking the courts for a ride and thereby undermining the dignity and honor of the court,” the bench said.
It said the appellant in this case has made a “mockery of justice”.
The bench said if at all the high court wanted to release the appellant on bail, it should have first asked him to deposit the amount within a particular period and upon such deposit, he could have been released.
“Be that as it may, now we have made ourselves very clear that there shall not be a single order that the high courts and the trial courts shall pass for grant of regular bail or anticipatory bail on the basis of any accused or his/her family members giving an undertaking to deposit a particular amount,” it said.
It said in any circumstances, the high courts or trial courts shall not pass a conditional order of regular bail or anticipatory bail.
While dismissing the appeal, the bench directed the apex court registry to circulate a copy of its order to all high courts at the earliest.
It said once the appellant surrenders and is taken in judicial custody, it shall be open for him to file a fresh regular bail application before the court concerned and such plea shall be decided strictly on its own merits and in accordance with law.
“We impose cost of Rs 50,000 for gross abuse of the process of law and taking the high court as well as this court for a ride,” the bench said. PTI ABA ZMN
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.