Case Title: Kundan Singh v. The Superintendent of CGST and Central Excise, SLP (Crl) No. 9111/2025

Date of Decision: June 2025
Bench: Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice N Kotiswar Singh

⚖️ Key Facts:

• The petitioner was arrested under the CGST Act on charges of tax evasion of ₹13.7 crores.
• While seeking bail before the Madras High Court, his counsel voluntarily offered to deposit ₹2.5 crores, in addition to ₹2.8 crores already deposited.
• The High Court granted bail, relying on this offer, without discussing the merits of the case.
• Later, the petitioner failed to deposit the amount, prompting the High Court to treat the bail as dismissed.
• The petitioner approached the Supreme Court, claiming that the condition was onerous and that the counsel was unauthorized to make the offer.

🏛️ Supreme Court’s Observations:

🔴 Condemnation of Manipulative Practice:

“We strongly deprecate this practice…we have to be conscious of the sanctity of judicial process. We cannot allow parties to play tucks and tricks with the Court.”

• The Court criticised the growing trend of:
  • Making voluntary offers to deposit money to secure bail.
  • Later challenging the condition as onerous.
  • Claiming that counsel had no authority to make such an offer.

⚖️ On the Sanctity of Judicial Process:

• The Court emphasized that such conduct:
  • Forecloses courts from examining bail applications on merit.
  • Undermines the integrity of judicial orders.
  • Results in “approbation and reprobation” — accepting and rejecting the same order at convenience.

📜 Article 21 vs. Judicial Sanctity:

“We are conscious of his rights under Article 21, but we have to be equally conscious of the sanctity of the judicial process.”

• A balance must be struck between the right to liberty and the integrity of court proceedings.

⚠️ Court’s Direction:

1. Initially, the Supreme Court:
   • Set aside the High Court’s orders.
   • Directed the petitioner to surrender within 1 week.
   • Remanded the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits.
2. Later, in light of humanitarian grounds (wife’s pregnancy, aged father), the Court:
   • Maintained interim bail as a temporary relief.
   • Reinforced that future courts must not allow misuse of voluntary bail conditions.

🧑‍⚖️ Key Legal Takeaways:

✅ 1. Onerous Conditions vs. Voluntary Offers:

• As per settled law, onerous bail conditions are impermissible (e.g., Moti Ram v. State of MP, AIR 1978 SC 1594).
• However, if the accused voluntarily offers a condition and gains advantage, they cannot later challenge it.

✅ 2. Doctrine of Approbate and Reprobate:

• A litigant cannot accept a part of the order (bail) and reject another (deposit condition).
• This doctrine ensures fairness and prevents manipulative litigation.

✅ 3. Counsel’s Authority and Ethical Representation:

• Unless promptly disputed, a statement made by counsel is deemed authoritative.
• In this case, no such objection was raised in the modification plea before the High Court.

🔍 Related Precedents Cited by Court and Recalled:

🔹 Sandeep Jain v. NCT of Delhi, (2000) 2 SCC 66

Excessive conditions of bail are violative of Article 21.

🔹 Vaman Narayan Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 2 SCC 281

Bail conditions must be reasonable and not amount to refusal of bail.

🔹 Moti Ram v. State of MP, AIR 1978 SC 1594

Bail should not depend on economic status alone.

---

📌 Important Message from the Bench:

“How can we start selling bail like this?”
“Don’t grant bail in private cheating cases merely because the accused undertakes to deposit money.”

The Court cautioned all courts, particularly trial and High Courts, against being persuaded by monetary offers alone while deciding bail applications.

🧾 Conclusion:

This judgment underscores the Supreme Court’s concern over:

• Misuse of voluntary monetary undertakings to gain bail.
• Post-facto challenges to such conditions.
• The need for merit-based bail and integrity in legal representations.

It serves as a judicial warning and a corrective precedent to curb a rising and unethical litigation practice, ensuring that Article 21 rights are not invoked to justify abuse of process.