New Delhi, July 31: In a strong message to the judiciary, the Supreme Court has warned that bail should not be granted merely on the basis of undertakings by the accused. The court emphasized that judicial discretion must be exercised based on legal merits rather than assurances such as financial deposits or cooperation promises.
A bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan voiced concern over a “worrying pattern” wherein courts, particularly at the trial and High Court levels, have been increasingly relying on accused persons' voluntary offers—such as monetary deposits or commitments to cooperate—to justify the grant of bail, even in grave criminal cases.
“An accused offering to deposit money does not, by itself, absolve them from the gravity of the charge,” the bench observed.
“Judges must examine the totality of circumstances, not just financial assurances.”
The Case in Focus
The observations were made during the hearing of multiple bail-related appeals, one of which involved allegations of serious financial fraud and criminal breach of trust. In that instance, bail was granted to the accused primarily based on a promise to repay the complainant.
When the accused later failed to fulfill this promise, they returned to court seeking a modification of the bail conditions. The Supreme Court refused to entertain what it called a misuse of the judicial process.
Key Takeaways from the Ruling
- No Substitute for Judicial Scrutiny: The court reiterated that bail decisions must be grounded in the legal merits of the case, including the seriousness of the charges, available evidence, and the risk of flight or tampering.
- Undertakings Are Not Guarantees: Financial commitments or voluntary cooperation should not become bargaining chips for liberty. Such practices can erode the credibility of judicial discretion.
- Uniform Bail Practices Risk Precedent: A “one-size-fits-all” approach to bail can lead to inconsistent justice and undermine public trust.
Legal Framework and Precedents
The court reminded that provisions under Sections 437, 438, and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) require a rigorous evaluation of several factors:
- Nature and gravity of the offence
- Stage of the investigation or trial
- Conduct and criminal history of the accused
- Possibility of absconding or influencing witnesses
Referencing prior rulings, including Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI and Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, the bench affirmed that while bail is a rule, it must be backed by judicial reasoning, not mechanical or superficial criteria.
