Supreme Court Criticizes Withdrawal of Voluntary Bail Offers
By Author / July 11, 2025
Category: Supreme Court | Legal Judgments
The Supreme Court in Kundan Singh v. The Superintendent of CGST and Central Excise [SLP (Crl.) No. 9111 of 2025] criticized a rising trend where bail applicants voluntarily offer large monetary deposits during hearings, only to later backtrack. The Court set aside the earlier bail and modification orders and sent the case back to the High Court for fresh hearing on merits.
⚖️ Background
Kundan Singh, the petitioner, was arrested on March 27, 2025 for alleged offenses under Sections 132(1)(a), 132(1)(i), and 132(5) of the CGST Act. Authorities accused him of tax evasion totaling ₹13.73 crores.
During his bail plea, his counsel stated that Singh had already deposited ₹2.86 crores. They further offered to deposit ₹2.5 crores more, without prejudice to his legal defense. On this basis, the High Court granted bail on May 8, 2025, with the condition that Singh deposit ₹50 lakhs before release and the remaining balance within 10 days.
⚠️ Petitioner Seeks Modification
Soon after, Singh filed a modification petition, citing his wife’s pregnancy and his father’s illness. He requested a deferral of the ₹50 lakh pre-release deposit. The High Court accepted this on May 14, 2025, but retained the 10-day deadline for full payment.
Singh later approached the Supreme Court, claiming that the bail conditions were too harsh. He also argued that his counsel had no authority to commit to such a monetary offer during the bail hearing.
❓ Key Issue
Can a bail applicant challenge conditions as “onerous” after voluntarily offering a monetary deposit through counsel?
🧑⚖️ Supreme Court’s Findings
The Supreme Court firmly rejected Singh’s challenge and made the following observations:
- The case highlights a disturbing pattern. Parties offer deposits to secure bail but later deny responsibility, calling the conditions burdensome.
- The Court emphasized that while bail must not include coercive financial conditions, it can consider voluntary offers made by counsel.
- Singh’s lawyer had never denied authority to make the offer during the modification plea. Instead, he only requested a delay in payment.
- The Court condemned such behavior, calling it “approbating and reprobating”, which harms the integrity of judicial proceedings.
✅ Final Order
The Supreme Court:
- Set aside the May 8 and May 14, 2025 High Court orders.
- Remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits, uninfluenced by past observations.
- Granted temporary protection from arrest to Singh, valid until the High Court hears the case again.
📌 Conclusion
This ruling reinforces a key principle: You cannot make voluntary bail commitments and later disown them. The Court’s strong stance aims to protect the credibility of the bail process and maintain judicial discipline.
