The Supreme Court has strongly deprecated the practice of making the grant of anticipatory bail conditional upon payment of disputed amounts, observing that such directions are contrary to settled law. The Court granted protection from arrest to a father-son duo accused in a business dispute, while also directing that its order be placed before the Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court.
The Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan expressed strong disapproval of the High Court’s approach. The bail—whether regular or anticipatory—cannot be made conditional upon deposit or repayment of disputed amounts.
The ruling came in Prantik Kumar & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr., arising out of an FIR registered at Adityapur Police Station, Jharkhand, alleging offences under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506, and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The case stems from a commercial transaction involving the purchase of craft paper. The complainant claimed to be an unpaid seller and alleged that an amount of approximately ₹9 lakh remained due from the accused. Based on these allegations, FIR No. 0184 dated June 10, 2023, was registered for cheating, criminal breach of trust, and related offences.
Apprehending arrest, the accused first approached the Sessions Court seeking anticipatory bail, which was declined. They subsequently moved the Jharkhand High Court.
High Court’s Controversial Orders
The High Court passed two orders—dated January 13, 2025, and November 14, 2025—directing the petitioners to file supplementary affidavits showing proof of payment of ₹9,12,926.84 to the complainant. The Court further stated that failure to file such affidavits within the stipulated time would result in automatic dismissal of the anticipatory bail applications.
The Supreme Court termed these orders as “very unusual” and noted that they were passed in complete disregard of binding precedent.
Referring to its recent judgment in Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. State of Maharashtra (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1571), the Bench observed that courts must either grant or refuse bail based on legal principles, but cannot compel an accused to pay money as a precondition for exercising judicial discretion.
The Court remarked that despite clear pronouncements, the High Court had insisted on payment, which was impermissible in law.
Allowing the Special Leave Petition, the Supreme Court directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail on such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Investigating Officer. The Court further directed that after release, the accused shall appear before the concerned court and furnish bail in accordance with law.
The Supreme Court directed its Registry to forward a copy of the order to the Registrar General of the Jharkhand High Court, with instructions to place it before the Chief Justice of the High Court for appropriate consideration.
Case Details
Case Title: Prantik Kumar & Anr. Versus State Of Jharkhand
Case No.: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No.4297/2026
Date: 03-02-2026
Counsel For Petitioner: Amit Pai
Counsel For Respondent: None
