The petitioner, Kundan Singh, was accused of offences under Sections 132(1) (a), 132(1)(i), and 132(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for alleged tax evasion amounting to ₹13.73 crore. He was arrested on 27 March 2025. During the bail proceedings before the Madras High Court, his counsel voluntarily offered to deposit ₹2.50 crore, out of which ₹50 lakh was to be paid before release and the balance ₹2 crore within ten days thereafter. Based on this undertaking, the High Court granted bail on 8 May 2025.

Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application seeking modification of the bail condition, citing personal and family circumstances. On 14 May 2025, the High Court modified its earlier order, permitting the entire deposit to be made within ten days from release but warned that non-compliance would automatically cancel the bail. The petitioner challenged this order before the Supreme Court, contending that such a monetary condition was onerous and that his counsel had no authority to make the initial offer.

The Supreme Court held that while courts must avoid imposing onerous bail conditions, it could not permit parties to misuse the judicial process by first offering monetary deposits to secure bail and later retracting those undertakings. The Court observed that the petitioner had voluntarily offered to deposit the amount, and no claim of lack of authority was raised during the modification proceedings. It found that the conduct of approbating and reprobating undermined judicial sanctity.

Accordingly, both the original bail order dated 8 May 2025 and the modification order dated 14 May 2025 were set aside. The matter was remanded to the Madras High Court for fresh consideration of the bail application on merits, uninfluenced by previous observations. Interim protection from surrender was granted to the petitioner until the High Court’s decision after remand.