SC deprecates accused reneging on voluntary offer of bail condition payout

The Supreme Court on Monday said that accused who seek bail by offering to pay huge amounts as part of bail conditions cannot renege on their offer and challenge the bail order as 'onerous' as such a practice amounts to playing 'ducks and drakes' with the court which affects sanctity of judicial process. The Supreme Court of India. (File Photo)
Deciding a case from Madras high court, which had released a man who defaulted on payment of over ₹ 13 crore towards goods and services tax (GST), a bench of justices KV Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh, sitting during the partial court working days, deprecated the practice adopted by the accused Kundan Singh, whose lawyer had made an offer to pay ₹ 50 lakh as part of bail condition prior to release, in addition to payment of outstanding dues to the tune of over ₹ 2.7 crore.
'What is troubling us is that an attempt is being made to foreclose consideration of bail on merits by voluntarily offering deposit of amounts and thereafter reneging on it by saying that either the counsel had no authority to make such a statement or the (bail) condition is onerous,' the bench said.
Setting aside the May 8 order of the high court, the order said, 'We strongly deprecate this practice. We have to be conscious of the sanctity of judicial process. We cannot allow parties to play ducks and drakes with the court. In this scenario, the only conclusion possible is that the original order of May 8 (modified on May 14) will have to be set aside and matter be remitted to the high court for consideration on merits.'
By making the offer for monetary deposit, the top court noted that the high court did not consider the matter on merits when the bail was opposed by the Superintendent of Central GST and Central Excise.
'We cannot permit parties to take advantage of a device resorted to by them to secure an order of release,' the court held, but stopped short of directing the petitioner to surrender as senior advocate V Chitambaresh appearing for the accused informed the bench that he needs to look after his pregnant wife and his ailing father.
Requesting the chief justice of the high court to 'expeditiously' take up the matter, the court converted the bail order to interim bail applicable till the date on which the high court takes up the matter. The order further requested the high court to expeditiously decide the bail plea uninfluenced by the observations made in the present order.
Chitambaresh told the court that his client had no means to pay the amount fixed by the high court and the lawyer representing the petitioner was not authorised to make this offer before the order of the high court was passed.
The bench was inclined to issue some general directions as it increasingly found such matters coming up in the top court. 'This scenario is becoming commonplace before this court. When parties move petition for anticipatory bail or regular bail, a voluntary offer is made by their counsel that they will deposit a substantial amount to show their bona fide.'
Thereafter, the bench observed, 'What happens is that the high court is foreclosed from considering the merits of the matter. An order is made recording the submission of the lawyer to grant anticipatory bail or regular bail. An appeal is made thereafter claiming that the condition of bail is onerous.'
The petitioner in the present case was charged for offences under the Central GST Act for supplying goods without proper invoice and vice versa. Singh was accused of evading tax to the tune of ₹ 13.7 crore. He was arrested on 27 March this year. In his petition for bail, his lawyer told the Madras high court that he was willing to deposit an amount of ₹ 2.7 crore upfront and would abide by any stringent conditions imposed by the high court.
The bail conditions fixed by the high court was agreed to by the petitioner's lawyer and failure to deposit the amount of ₹ 2.7 crore along with ₹ 50 lakh as part of bail condition within 10 days of release would result in automatic dismissal of the bail plea.
The court said that the top court has in its decisions consistently held thar onerous conditions of bail cannot be imposed while granting bail. At the same time, the order clarified, 'What is onerous will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.' The present case was distinguished by the court as the condition came to be imposed on the accused or his lawyer's voluntary offer.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Indian Express

an hour ago

• Indian Express

SC stays further coercive action against man facing multiple FIRs for social media posts

'Hate speech will not take us anywhere,' the Supreme Court said Monday as it stayed further arrest of Wazahat Khan, accused of allegedly hurting religious sentiments through his social media posts and on whose complaint West Bengal police arrested law student Sharmishta Panoli on similar charges. Issuing notice on his plea seeking consolidation of FIRs registered against Khan in Assam, Maharashtra, Delhi and Haryana over his social media posts, a bench of Justices K V Viswanathan and N K Singh directed against any coercive action in the other FIRs or any other FIR that may be registered in future over the same allegations. The bench noted that Khan was undergoing police custody in an FIR registered at the Golf Link police station in Kolkata, and was also remanded to judicial custody in another FIR lodged in Bengal. During the hearing, Justice Viswanathan remarked orally 'these hate speeches get us nowhere'. Citing a Tamil saying, he added '…a wound inflicted by fire may heal, but one inflicted by tongue will not'. Justice Viswanathan said, 'I have been thinking, someday we will get into it…incitement to violence is a test for the speech — should it be physical violence? Need not be. It can also be verbal.' Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu appearing for Khan said the FIRs were registered in retaliation to the complaint he had made against Panoli. The bench asked why he had not attached the allegedly offensive tweets. Naidu said he had deleted those tweets and apologised before the FIRs were lodged. Apparently conveying his disapproval of the social media posts by Khan, Naidu said he is 'reaping what he has sown' but had 'learnt the lesson the hard way'. He said he was only praying to consolidate the different FIRs so that trial can happen in one place. The bench said that the alleged social media posts were 'all hate mongering' and would not fall within the ambit of free speech.

Time of India

an hour ago

• Time of India

Guwahati directs Assam govt to reinstate officials involved in cash for jobs scam

The Gauhati High Court directed the Assam government to reinstate 52 of the 57 dismissed civil, police and allied service officials of 2013 and 2014 batch who were involved in the cash for jobs scam in the Combined Competitive Examinations. A Division Bench, comprising Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Malashri Nandi ordered that the dismissed officials, who had completed the probation period, be reinstated within a period of 50 days. The Assam government will move the Supreme Court against a Gauhati High Court order. Corruption of APSC was an election issue in the 2016 assembly and BJP had promised to clean up the corrupt practices of the commission. The appellants had challenged the earlier judgement passed by a single judge upholding their dismissal from service. The high court also allowed the state government to not assign them any duties for the next 30 days and to conduct any departmental. Assam chief minister Himanta Biswa Sarma had termed the high court order "painful" at a time when the state government was ensuring only merit-based recruitments. Sarma said, "The judgement by the division bench on the APSC matter is painful and has led to disappointment for us". He added, "We will definitely appeal before the Supreme Court and will try at the last moment to ensure that no one who had got their job through the wrong way is reinstated," the chief minister added. The Court of Special Judge at Guwahati in July last year pronounced the verdict for convicts in the APSC cash-for-job scam where the Assam Public Service Commission 's former chairman, Rakesh Paul, has been awarded 14 years of imprisonment and a Rs. 2 lakh penalty. Also, former APSC members Basanta Kumar Doley and Samedur Rahman have been sentenced to 10-year jail terms. Furthermore, 29 candidates who paid for jobs to get Agricultural Development Officer (ADO) jobs in 2014 have been awarded 4 years of imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000. 32 people, including the Assam Public Service Commission's former chairman, Rakesh Paul, two of its members, and 29 candidates were convicted by the court on July 22 last year. Paul, along with the other members and officials of the APSC, were arrested for a cash-for-jobs case related to the Combined Competitive Examinations (CCE) for the recruitment of civil, police and other service officials. Paul was arrested by Dibrugarh Police in November 2016 and released on bail in March 2023. Economic Times WhatsApp channel )

Hindustan Times

3 hours ago

• Hindustan Times

SC grants relief to man who filed complaint against YouTube influencer

New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Monday granted interim protection from coercive action till July 14 to the man who filed a complaint against social media influencer Sharmistha Panoli for allegedly making communal remarks in a video. SC grants relief to man who filed complaint against YouTube influencer A bench of Justices K V Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh passed the order while hearing a plea by Wazahat Khan, booked in FIRs across states, including West Bengal. The bench said Khan was already arrested by West Bengal Police and was in custody. His counsel said the FIRs and complaints against Khan were registered in several states for his old tweets, which were alleged to have hurt religious sentiments. After the bench agreed to hear his plea, his counsel sought no further coercive action against his client till the next date of hearing. "Having considered the prayer, we are inclined to grant the same," the bench said. As an interim measure, the top court said, till the next date of hearing on July 14, no coercive action should be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the FIRs or complaints referred to in the petition or the FIRs or complaints which may be lodged against him in connection with similar allegations. "There is a famous Tamil saying. It must be there in Telugu also. A wound inflicted by a fire may heal but not a wound inflicted by the tongue," the bench observed. Khan was arrested by Kolkata Police on June 9. He moved the apex court alleging that FIRs and complaints have been lodged against him in several states, including Assam, West Bengal, Maharashtra and Haryana, for certain old tweets made by him. The FIRs were in retaliation to a complaint filed by him against Panoli, who was arrested and later released on bail, he argued. "I have deleted all of them and apologised," his counsel said, submitting Khan was perhaps "reaping what he has sown". His counsel argued that the first FIR, according to the petitioner, was dated June 2. He referred to a number of previous judgements and orders of the apex court in which orders to consolidate the FIRs either in one state or multiple FIRs filed in a state to the state concerned were passed. The bench agreed to hear the plea and issued notice to the Centre and states of West Bengal, Assam, Maharashtra, Delhi and Haryana. The matter would be heard on July 14. Khan, arrested by the Kolkata Police in June earlier, was booked in the case for offences under the BNS, including for promoting enmity between different groups based on religion, race, and insults or attempts to insult religion. An FIR was registered against him at the Golf Green Police Station in south Kolkata for allegedly promoting hate speech and hurting religious sentiments through his social media posts. The other charges slapped against him included provoking breach of peace and statements conducing to public mischief. Panoli, a 22-year-old law student, was arrested by Kolkata Police from Gurugram in Haryana on May 30 after a video she uploaded on social media drew widespread outrage. She was booked by Garden Reach Police Station in Kolkata on May 15. The Calcutta High Court granted her interim bail on June 5. Khan, the prime complainant against Panoli, got a complaint registered against the influencer for offences, including malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings, leading the police to lodge a case against her. In the video, Panoli allegedly hurled abuses and made communal remarks while being critical of a section of Bollywood celebrities for their silence on Operation Sindoor. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.