New Delhi: The Supreme Court on February 3, 2026, intervened to set aside two orders of the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court which had made the grant of anticipatory bail conditional upon the deposit of a disputed commercial amount, holding that such a course was impermissible in law.
A Bench comprising Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Hon’ble Justice K.V. Viswanathan was hearing a Special Leave Petition filed by a father and son who had been denied anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 184 of 2023 registered at Adityapur Police Station, Jharkhand, for offences under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506 and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, for not filing an affidavit showing that payment had been made.
The dispute arose out of a commercial transaction relating to the supply of craft paper. The first informant claimed to be an unpaid seller and alleged that an amount of approximately ₹9.12 lakh remained due from the petitioners. On this basis, an FIR alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust came to be registered.
Apprehending arrest, the petitioners initially approached the Sessions Court seeking anticipatory bail. Upon rejection, they moved the Jharkhand High Court.
By an order dated January 13, 2025, the High Court recorded that the petitioners would file a supplementary affidavit showing payment of ₹9,12,926.84 to the complainant and directed that the anticipatory bail application be listed thereafter, making it clear that failure to file such an affidavit would result in automatic dismissal.
A similar course was adopted in a subsequent order dated November 14, 2025, passed in the restoration petition preferred for restoration of the aforementioned application for anticipatory bail, which had been rejected by virtue of the order dated January 13, 2025, again granting time to file proof of payment and providing that the restoration application would stand dismissed in default.
The Supreme Court described the High Court’s approach as “very unusual.” The Bench observed that despite repeated pronouncements of this Court, bail orders continued to be passed subject to monetary deposits.
The Court noted:
“It is very unfortunate that despite this Court saying in so many words that grant of regular bail or anticipatory bail should not be subject to the deposit of any amount, the High Court has said that the petitioners should deposit the balance amount of ₹9,12,926.84.”
Referring to its decision in Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. State of Maharashtra [2025 INSC 913], the Court reiterated:
“If a case for grant of bail or anticipatory bail is made out, then the Court should proceed to pass an appropriate order and if not made out, the Court may decline; however, the Court should not pass a conditional order of deposit of a particular amount and then exercise its discretion.”
The Supreme Court’s disapproval was not confined to the mere imposition of a monetary condition but extended to the manner in which bail jurisdiction was exercised on considerations extraneous to its settled purpose. As reiterated in Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. State of Maharashtra, the jurisdiction to grant or refuse regular or anticipatory 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. The Court made it explicit that 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 amounts to a misuse of judicial discretion. Conditioning the consideration or grant of bail upon payment of a disputed amount therefore undermines the distinction between civil and criminal remedies and is impermissible in law.
After hearing counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Amit Pai and Mr. Nitesh Ranjan, AOR, the Supreme Court directed that a copy of its order be forwarded to the Registrar General of the Jharkhand High Court, with a further direction that it be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court directed that, in the event of 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.
With these directions, the Special Leave Petitions were disposed of.
Counsel: Mr. Amit Pai, Advocate; Ms. Avantika Chaudhary, Advocate; and Mr. Nitesh Ranjan, Advocate-on-Record.
Case Title: Prantik Kumar & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. [SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 4297 of 2026]
