Apex Court Reinforces Principle Against Monetary Conditions for Bail, Citing Established Jurisprudence
In a significant ruling on February 3, 2026, the Supreme Court of India set aside conditional bail orders issued by the Jharkhand High Court, which required petitioners Prantik Kumar and his father to deposit unpaid amounts as a prerequisite for anticipatory bail. The Supreme Court's decision reiterates established principles of criminal jurisprudence that oppose monetary conditions for the grant of bail.
The case arose from a First Information Report (FIR) registered at Adityapur Police Station, Jharkhand, implicating the petitioners in offenses under sections 406, 420, 504, 506, and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was filed following a business transaction dispute involving craft paper, with allegations that the petitioners owed Rs.9,00,000 to the complainant.
After the Sessions Court denied anticipatory bail, the petitioners approached the Jharkhand High Court, which imposed a condition requiring the petitioners to file a supplementary affidavit showing payment of Rs.9,12,926.84 to the complainant. The High Court's orders dated January 13, 2025, and November 14, 2025, effectively linked the grant of anticipatory bail to the deposit of this amount.
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan criticized the High Court's approach, emphasizing that bail decisions should be based solely on the merits of the case rather than any monetary conditions. This stance aligns with the Supreme Court's prior ruling in "Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. State of Maharashtra," which clearly stated that bail should not be conditional upon payment.
Justice Pardiwala, delivering the judgment, underscored the importance of adhering to established criminal jurisprudence principles. He asserted that courts should not pass conditional orders requiring monetary deposits for bail, as these are contrary to legal precedents. The Supreme Court directed that if the petitioners are arrested in connection with the FIR, they should be released on bail subject to conditions deemed appropriate by the Investigating Officer, without any financial stipulations.
The Supreme Court's decision marks a reaffirmation of the judiciary's commitment to uphold the principles of justice and fairness, ensuring that bail remains a mechanism for safeguarding individual liberty rather than a tool for coercive financial recovery.
The Supreme Court instructed the Registrar General of the High Court of Jharkhand to present the order to the Chief Justice of the High Court, ensuring that the directive is duly noted and adhered to in future cases.
This ruling is expected to have a profound impact on bail jurisprudence across the country, reinforcing the notion that bail conditions should not contravene established legal principles and should focus on the merits of the case rather than financial considerations.
Bottom Line:
Grant of regular bail or anticipatory bail should not be subject to deposit of any amount.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code Sections 406, 420, 504, 506, 120B, 34; Criminal Procedure Code
Prantik Kumar v. State Of Jharkhand, (SC) : Law Finder Doc id # 2850783
