Supreme Court deprecates ‘trend’ of accused reneging on promised payment after securing bail

The Supreme Court on Monday (June 23, 2025) objected to the “trend” of accused persons gaining bail by voluntarily offering to pay considerable sums of money, especially in tax evasion and financial fraud cases, as a sign of their bona fides, only to later renege payment to the court.

A Bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and N. Kotiswar Singh said these persons would approach the courts again, seeking exemption from making the payment by either claiming the bail condition to be stringent or blaming their lawyers for acting without their authority.

Justice Viswanathan orally observed that the courts had become frequent witnesses to this ploy in recent times.

Also Read | ‘No rule one must spend a year in jail for relief’: Supreme Court grants bail in money laundering case

“We cannot allow parties to play ducks and drakes with the court… We cannot permit parties to take advantage of a device resorted by them to secure orders of release,” the Bench noted.

“When parties move applications for anticipatory/regular bail, voluntary offers are made by their counsel to deposit substantial amounts to show bona fide and secure liberty. Thereafter, a grievance is made before a higher court that the condition imposed for bail was onerous and illegal,” Justice Viswanthan observed.

The Bench was hearing the bail plea of a man accused of tax evasion to the tune of over ₹13 crore. He was arrested in March 2025.

Also Read | Courts must stick to strict conditions if bail is not for violation of fundamental rights: SC judgment

The petitioner, represented by senior advocate V. Chidambresh, had previously secured bail from the Madras High Court by arguing that he had made a part payment of the disputed amount and was willing to pay a further ₹2.5 crore after his release.

However, he had failed to pay the promised amount and the High Court had dismissed his bail. He had moved the apex court against the dismissal.

Noting that the top court was “conscious of his rights under Article 21, but was equally conscious of the sanctity of the judicial process”, the Bench initially directed the man to surrender before the trial court within a week. However, the Bench, considering the man’s familial responsibilities, recalled the order for his surrender.