Supreme Court Prohibits Bail Based on Monetary Undertakings — A Landmark Ruling in Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

On 28 July 2025, the Supreme Court delivered a watershed judgment in Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2025 INSC 913), ruling that trial courts and High Courts must not grant bail or anticipatory bail based on any monetary undertaking by the accused, but decide solely on the case’s merits

Background:

• Appellant Gore, accused of misappropriating ₹1.6 crore, secured bail from the Bombay High Court on 1 April 2024, conditioned on depositing ₹25 lakh and certain other self-imposed undertakings.

• He failed to fulfil the undertaking, prompting the High Court to cancel bail and order surrender by 31 July 2025.

• The Supreme Court upheld the cancellation, imposed a ₹50,000 cost for abusing process, and issued a nationwide directive banning bail based on undertakings.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

Key Findings & Legal Reasoning

• Liberty vs. Monetary Coercion: The Court emphasized that individual liberty under Article 21 cannot be bartered via financial promises, which derail merit-based bail adjudication.

• Abuse of Judicial Process: Accepting undertakings led to flawed bail processes, as many accused renege voluntarily, undermining courts’ integrity.

• Directive Issued: Effective immediately, no trial court or High Court may grant bail based on undertakings; decisions must focus strictly on legal merits.

Precedents Referenced

The judgment cites critical precedent case law:

• Ramesh Kumar v. NCT Delhi – courts are not recovery agents.

• Apurva Kirti Mehta v. Maharashtra – upholds the primacy of liberty over financial preconditions.

• Kundan Singh v. CGST & Central Excise – condemns use-and-abandon strategies with undertakings.

• Biman Chatterjee v. Sanchita Chatterjee – distinguished matrimonial compromise context from misuse of bail undertakings.

PRACTICAL & POLICY IMPACT

For Courts & Judicial Framework

• Bail must now be merit-dependent; undertakings, especially monetary ones, are categorically prohibited.

• High Courts and tribunals must align future bail jurisprudence with this directive.

For Accused and Defence Counsel

• Monetary tactics to secure bail are now invalid — reliance must shift to substantive advocacy based on case facts and law.

• Legal practitioners must uphold professional ethics and align with constitutional principles.

For Legal Policy & Criminal Justice System

• The ruling strengthens equality before law by curbing resource-driven advantages.

• Upholds the sanctity and independence of judicial discretion, averting manipulation via financial undertakings.

Prime8Legal advises clients globally—from Gurgaon to New York, London, Dubai, California and more—on evolving criminal procedural norms.

Contact Us Today:

• Address (Gurgaon, India): 318-B Saraswati Kunj, Sector 53

  Golf Course Road, Gurgaon 122003

• Phone: +91-97175 86165

• Email: prime8legal@gmail.com

FAQs

Q1: What is the key ruling in Gajanan Dattatray Gore?

The Supreme Court banned granting bail based solely on monetary undertakings; decisions must be merit-based.

Q2: Why did the High Court cancel Gore’s bail?

He failed to deposit ₹25 lakh as promised in his undertaking.

Q3: What directives did the Supreme Court issue?

All trial and High Courts must stop considering undertakings for bail; bail must be adjudicated on merits. Costs of ₹50,000 imposed for abuse of process.

Q4: How does this affect future bail applications?

Defence must rely on legal and factual merits, not strategic undertakings or financial promises.

Q5: What are the broader implications?

Promotes equity, preserves judicial dignity, and curbs manipulative bail tactics in India and abroad.