The Supreme Court has reiterated that granting regular or anticipatory bail should not be made conditional on depositing any amount. In this case, the Court set aside the bail conditions imposed by the Jharkhand High Court and ordered that the accused be released on bail if arrested. The Supreme Court also directed its Registry to send a copy of the order to the Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court.

Background:

According to the case summary, the two accused- a father and son- were denied anticipatory bail by the High Court in a cheating case. The complainant alleged that they bought craft papers from him but did not pay Rs. 9,00,000. An FIR was registered, after which the accused applied for bail before the Sessions Court, but their plea was rejected.

They then approached the High Court, which passed two orders directing them to file a supplementary affidavit showing payment of Rs. 9,12,926.84 to the complainant. The accused sought more time to do so, and the High Court granted the request.

In orders dated January 13, 2025, and November 14, 2025, the High Court said that if the affidavit was not filed, the anticipatory bail application would be dismissed without further notice. These orders were challenged before a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan.

Bench’s Observations:

The bench immediately observed that the High Court had passed "unusual orders," and appeared unaware of the Supreme Court's ruling in Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. State of Maharashtra (2025), where Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held that bail applications must be decided on their merits and not on the basis of the accused's assurances.

Court’s Criticism:

The bench expressed dismay that High Courts continue to pass such orders despite clear directions from the Supreme Court.

"It is very unfortunate that despite this Court saying in so many words that grant of regular bail or the anticipatory bail should not be subject to deposit of any amount, the High Court has said that the petitioners should deposit the balance amount of Rs.9,12,926.84. In our Judgment, referred to above, we made ourselves very clear that 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, Court should not pass a conditional order of a deposit of a particular amount and then exercise its discretion."

Final Directions:

Accordingly, the Court directed that they be released on bail upon arrest, subject to conditions fixed by the investigating officer.

Case Details: PRANTIK KUMAR & ANR v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. [SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) Diary No.4297/2026]