Grant of Bail Should Not Be Subject to Deposit of Money

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan, in the case of Prantik Kumar & Anr. v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2026), set aside bail orders passed by the Jharkhand High Court which had made anticipatory bail conditional upon the deposit of dues owed to the complainant. The Court reiterated that bail applications must be decided on merits alone, and that courts cannot pass conditional orders directing deposit of amounts as a prerequisite for bail.

What was the Background of Prantik Kumar & Anr. v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2026) Case? 

• The petition was filed by two accused persons — a father and son — who had been denied anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court in a cheating case. 
• The complaint alleged that the accused had failed to make a payment of Rs. 9,00,000 after purchasing craft papers from the complainant. 
• A First Information Report was lodged, and anticipating arrest, the accused applied for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court, which was denied. 
• The accused then approached the Jharkhand High Court, which passed two orders — dated January 13, 2025, and November 14, 2025 — directing them to file a supplementary affidavit showing that a payment of Rs. 9,12,926.84 had been made to the complainant. 
• In both orders, the High Court observed that if the affidavit showing payment was not filed, the anticipatory bail application would be dismissed without further reference. 
• The accused persons sought time before the High Court, following which they challenged both conditional orders before the Supreme Court. 
• The Supreme Court bench noted with disappointment that the High Court had passed these orders in ignorance of the Supreme Court's binding judgment in Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. State of Maharashtra (2025), wherein it was held that bail applications must be adjudicated on merits and not on assurance of the accused.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The bench described the High Court's orders as "unusual orders", passed in ignorance of a clear and binding judgment of the Supreme Court. 
• The Court expressed that it was "very unfortunate" that despite explicit directions, High Courts continue to pass conditional bail orders tying bail to deposit of amounts. 
• The bench reiterated unequivocally that if a case for grant of bail or anticipatory bail is made out, the Court should pass an appropriate order granting bail; and if not made out, the Court may decline bail — however, the Court cannot pass a conditional order directing deposit of a particular amount and then exercise its discretion. 
• The Court set aside the impugned orders of the Jharkhand High Court and directed that in the event of arrest of the accused persons, they shall be released on bail subject to conditions imposed by the investigating officer. 
• The Court further directed the Registry to forward a copy of the order to the file before the Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court.

What Statutory Provisions Regulate Bail in India? 

• The Indian bail system operates under Chapter 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The statutory framework creates a bifurcated classification between bailable and non-bailable offenses, establishing distinct procedural pathways for release consideration. 
• Section 479 of BNSS mandates that persons accused of bailable offenses possess an absolute right to bail upon furnishing appropriate security. Police officers in charge of stations and courts lack discretionary authority to deny bail for scheduled bailable offenses, ensuring immediate release upon compliance with statutory conditions. 
• Non-bailable offenses under Section 480 require judicial evaluation based on statutory criteria including offense gravity, evidence strength, and defendant's antecedents. Courts must consider factors prescribed in Section 480(3) including likelihood of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, and flight risk when exercising discretionary authority. 
• Section 482 provides for anticipatory bail, enabling individuals apprehending arrest for non-bailable offenses to seek pre-arrest protection from Sessions Courts or High Courts. This provision incorporates constitutional safeguards against arbitrary detention while maintaining investigative authority. 
• The statutory framework mandates automatic bail under Section 187 when investigations exceed prescribed time limits, implementing the "default bail" doctrine to prevent indefinite detention without trial. 

What are the Different Types of Bail? 

• Regular Bail: The court orders the release of a person who is under arrest, from Police custody after paying the amount as bail money. An accused can apply for regular bail under Section 437 and 439 of CrPC (Section 480 and Section 483 of BNSS) 
• Interim Bail: This is a direct order by the court to provide temporary and short-term bail to the accused until his regular or anticipatory bail application is pending before the court. 
• Anticipatory Bail: A person under apprehension of arrest for a non-bailable offence may apply for anticipatory bail to the High Court or the Court of Session under Section 438 of CrPC (Section 482 of BNSS).