The Bombay High Court has unequivocally invalidated a bail condition requiring an accused to deposit Rs. 28 lakh as a precondition for release, reinforcing the Supreme Court’s binding directive that bail must be granted solely on legal merit, not financial capacity. This order reaffirms a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence: liberty cannot be conditioned on wealth.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Shreyash Sanjay Mane, was arrested in connection with a criminal case pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. He filed Criminal Bail Application No. 8191 of 2025 seeking regular bail. On 27.01.2026, the Additional Sessions Judge granted bail but imposed a condition requiring the applicant to deposit Rs. 28,00,000 as a precondition for release.
Key Facts
- The applicant was arrested in connection with a criminal case under provisions of the Indian Penal Code and relevant special laws
- The bail application was filed on or before 15.12.2025
- The Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, passed an order on 27.01.2026 granting bail but subject to Condition No. (1): deposit of Rs. 28,00,000
- The applicant was unable to comply with the deposit condition due to financial constraints
- Despite being granted bail on merit, the applicant remained in judicial custody from 27.01.2026 until the filing of the present application
- The applicant filed Criminal Application No. 202 of 2026 under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) challenging the deposit condition
Procedural History
- 15.12.2025: Criminal Bail Application No. 8191 of 2025 filed before Additional Sessions Judge, Pune
- 27.01.2026: Additional Sessions Judge granted bail but imposed condition of depositing Rs. 28,00,000
- 28.01.2026: Applicant sought clarification on deposit mechanism; no compliance possible
- 01.02.2026: Applicant’s counsel filed written submission against the condition
- 10.03.2026: Application for waiver of deposit condition submitted to Sessions Court; rejected
- 15.04.2026: Criminal Application No. 202 of 2026 filed before Bombay High Court under Section 528 BNSS
- 15.07.2026: Hearing before Bombay High Court
The Parties' Positions
For the Applicant
The applicant, through counsel Mr. Raj Bannatwala, argued that the deposit condition was arbitrary, violative of Article 21 of the Constitution, and contrary to binding Supreme Court precedents. He submitted that the applicant was entitled to bail on merit and that financial inability should not be a barrier to liberty.
For the Respondent
The State, represented by Ms. A. S. Gotad, argued that the deposit condition was imposed to ensure compliance with bail terms and to deter flight risk, citing the seriousness of the allegations. She contended that the condition was a reasonable exercise of judicial discretion.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought deletion of Condition No. (1) requiring deposit of Rs. 28,00,000, immediate release on bail without financial precondition, and directions to the Sessions Court to comply with the Supreme Court’s binding directives.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a Trial Court or High Court may impose a monetary deposit as a precondition for the grant of regular bail under Section 528 of the BNSS, or whether such a condition violates the principle that bail must be granted on legal merit alone, as laid down by the Supreme Court.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The applicant relied on two binding judgments of the Supreme Court: Gajanan Dattatray Gore v. State of Maharashtra (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1571) and Prantik Kumar v. State of Jharkhand (2026 SCC OnLine SC 925). He argued that the Supreme Court had explicitly prohibited courts from conditioning bail on the accused’s undertaking or ability to deposit money. The applicant emphasized that bail is a right, not a privilege, and that financial conditions effectively criminalize poverty. He further submitted that the condition rendered the grant of bail illusory, as the applicant had remained incarcerated for over four months despite the order.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that the deposit condition was imposed to ensure the applicant’s appearance before court and to mitigate risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. It argued that courts have inherent power to impose reasonable conditions under Section 528 BNSS and that the amount was proportionate to the gravity of the offence. The State did not cite any statutory provision authorizing monetary deposits as a bail condition.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by acknowledging that the Additional Sessions Judge had correctly recognized the applicant’s entitlement to bail on merit. However, the imposition of a monetary deposit as a precondition rendered the grant of bail ineffective and contrary to constitutional principles.
"We have noticed over a period of time that orders of regular bail and anticipatory bail are being passed by different High Courts subject to deposit of some amount... This practice has to be stopped. Litigants are taking the courts for a ride and thereby undermining the dignity and honor of the court."
The Court cited Gajanan Dattatray Gore to emphasize that courts must not rely on undertakings or statements by the accused regarding deposit of money. Such practices invite abuse, as accused persons may be pressured into making false assurances, only to later claim they were misrepresented. The Court further noted that in Prantik Kumar, the Supreme Court had explicitly condemned the imposition of a Rs. 9.12 lakh deposit as a condition for bail, calling it a violation of the principle that bail must be granted or denied strictly on the merits.
The Court held that Section 528 of the BNSS permits courts to impose conditions for bail, but such conditions must be procedural, not financial. Conditions like surrender of passport, reporting to police, or prohibition from contacting witnesses are permissible. A monetary deposit, however, transforms liberty into a commodity and violates the equality principle under Article 14 and the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
The Court rejected the State’s argument that the deposit was a deterrent, noting that no statutory provision authorizes such a condition. The Court observed that the Sessions Judge’s order, while granting bail, had effectively denied it by imposing an unattainable condition. The applicant’s continued incarceration for five months despite the bail order was deemed a gross violation of his fundamental rights.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The Bombay High Court set aside Condition No. (1) of the order dated 27.01.2026 requiring the deposit of Rs. 28,00,000. The remaining terms of the bail order remain in force. The applicant is directed to be released immediately upon compliance with the non-monetary conditions of bail. The Sessions Court is directed to issue a fresh order reflecting the deletion of the monetary condition within 48 hours.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Monetary Deposits Are Not Valid Bail Conditions
- Practitioners must immediately challenge any bail order imposing a cash deposit, regardless of the amount
- Courts cannot justify such conditions under "discretion" or "gravity of offence" - the Supreme Court has closed this loophole
- Any bail order containing a monetary condition is void ab initio and subject to immediate challenge under Section 528 BNSS
Liberty Cannot Be Conditional on Wealth
- The judgment establishes that financial capacity cannot be a factor in bail determinations
- Courts must now focus exclusively on flight risk, tampering risk, and likelihood of reoffending
- Legal aid applicants and indigent accused are now protected from de facto detention due to inability to pay
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
-
All bail orders must be clear, unambiguous, and free of impossible conditions
-
If a court grants bail but imposes a financial barrier, the order is legally ineffective
-
Advocates must file applications under Section 528 BNSS without delay when such conditions are imposed
-
The applicant must be released within 48 hours of this order
-
The Sessions Court must issue a revised bail order without the deposit condition
-
No further appeal lies against this order
