In the case of Gajanan Dattatray Gore v., the Supreme Court of India held that. The State of Maharashtra & Anr., has provided an important judgment which shall have ample implications in terms of the legal framework of the nation. The judgment, which was delivered on July 28, 2025, touches on the issue of bail that is given with an objective that an accused person must deposit a sum of money. This is out rightly banned by the Court order and the Court expects the upcoming High Courts and the Trial Courts to grant bails based on merits of the case only.
The background of the Case
The case is listed against Gajanan Dattatray Gore, who has been arrested with reference to a case registered under a First Information Report (FIR) as in Satara City Police Station, Maharashtra. He was charged with crimes committed under many provisions of the Indian penal code which included criminal breach of trust, cheating, and forgery. Against Gore were the crimes of misappropriation of a large amount of money, i.e., Rs. 1.6 crore by the accused who was a business development manager of a company running an advertising firm as well as a training institute and was accused of misappropriating the money given by his employer.
Gore then came to the High Court of Bombay requesting it to grant him regular bail after the Trial Court had refused to award regular bail to him. In the hearings at the High court, Gore himself presented an affidavit-cum-undertaking where he is obligated to pay Rs. 25 lakh within five months. Based on this and other reasons such as the completion of the investigation and the fact that the trial was most likely to be an extended period, High Court granted him bail on April 1, 2024. The High Court was very categorical that the amount of Rs. 25 lakh must be deposited in the trial court.
The Breach of the Undertaking and Prosecution
Although Gore had been granted bail after posting a personal recognizance bond, he did not manage to put the more promised 25 lakh into the bank. It was due to this failure that the first complainant (Respondent No. 2) proceeded under an interim application before the High Court to have Gore bail canceled. In the order dated July 1, 2025, the High Court held that Gore had violated his solemn undertaking. The court said that this voluntary offer by Gore had precluded the court to decide on merits his bail application.
The High Court took into consideration the argument by Gore that he was in an “onerous position” and used one of the verdicts of the Supreme Court.
Kundan Singh v. The Superintendent of CGST and Central Excise which decried the habit of putting in a voluntary offer to give money later on known as reneging. The High Court eventually revoked the bail of Gore and ordered him to report in four weeks.
The Stern Directives of the Supreme Court
Gore used an appeal to the Supreme Court against the ruling of the High Court. Supreme court adopted a hardline against release on conditional bail, especially in the case of money deposits. The Court noted that it has been witnessing such an order concerning both regular and anticipatory bail where the courts have been giving a condition of depositing a sum of money. It emphasized that accused individuals will usually undertake these to get bail and then later on claim that the condition is heavy or that he or she had not authorized his or her attorney to say so. This practice was voiced by the Court to erode the dignity and honor of the court and to enable litigants to take the courts on a ride.
The Supreme Court, in its pronouncement, made it explicitly clear that this practice has to be ended. The Court came out with crisp statement and commanded all High Courts and Trial Courts that they will not pass any orders granting regular bail or anticipatory bail based on any undertakings that the accused is willing to give in order to obtain appropriate reliefs. The Court stressed that every bail plea has to be fixed on the merits of the case strictly. It also shed light on the fact that where sustained, a case may be able to allow the opposing side of the case to apply its discretion of awarding bail, otherwise it should not. The court, however, very clearly mentioned in the case that a conditional order of regular or anticipatory bail should not be made at all.
Application of Law and Rejection of the Appeal
The supreme Court dismissed the appeal made by Gore, citing that he had taken a dig at the justice system and thwarted the law process. The Court explained that it was unwilling to look at his application of regular bail. It also indicated that in case the High Court was indeed planning to offer him bail, it ought to have ensured that the amount is deposited first prior to granting him the bail. The reason behind this is because, as clarified by the judgment, should Gore give himself up and be placed under judicial custody, he is welcome to move a new bail application but this would solely be taken on its own merits and up to the law. During the final step, the Supreme Court made an order of Rs. 50,000 against Gore on account of gross abuse of the legal procedure by him.
The decision is a good lesson to the legal system concerning sanctity of the bail procedure and need to follow the laid down principles of law. It is directed at eliminating abuse of the bail system and so that the decision of granting bail is an exercise in discretion, rather than one that is founded based on facts and legal merit of a case, regardless of a financial undertaking. The directive by the Court supports the idea that criminal justice is not an avenue of salvaging a financial argument.
Author
For any queries or to publish an article or post on our platform, please email us at contact@legalmaestros.com.
