Supreme Court’s Concern
- SC flagged a growing trend: Accused persons promise large payments to secure bail, especially in financial fraud and tax evasion cases — but later fail to honour the commitment.
- The practice is seen as a deliberate ploy to mislead courts and gain temporary liberty.
Relevance : GS 2(Social Justice, Judiciary)
Manipulation of Judicial Process
Accused later challenge bail conditions as:
- Onerous or illegal, or
- Claim lawyers made the offer without consent.
- Courts become victims of tactical misuse, undermining the sanctity of judicial orders.
Judicial Observations
- Justice Viswanathan: “We cannot allow parties to play ducks and drakes with the court.”
- Courts must not permit misuse of voluntary undertakings used solely to secure bail.
Case in Focus
- Accused in ₹13 crore tax evasion case.
- Had secured bail by promising to pay ₹2.5 crore after partial payment.
- Failed to pay the promised sum → High Court cancelled bail.
- Moved Supreme Court against bail cancellation.
SC’s Balanced Approach
- Initially ordered the accused to surrender.
- Later, in view of familial responsibilities, recalled the surrender order, showing:
- Balance between Article 21 (Right to Liberty) and Integrity of the legal process.
Ethical and Legal Concerns
Raises questions on:
- Good faith in litigation,
- Abuse of anticipatory/regular bail procedures, and
- Role of counsel accountability in submitting financial offers.
- Calls for stricter scrutiny of bail conditions and their enforcement.
Implications for Judicial Reform
SC’s remarks could:
- Influence stricter guidelines on bail undertakings,
- Lead to penal consequences for non-compliance,
- Reinforce ethical standards in legal representations.
