Kundan Singh Vs Superintendent of CGST And Central Excise (Supreme Court of India)
Supreme Court of India has expressed strong disapproval of a growing practice where individuals seeking bail voluntarily offer substantial monetary deposits to secure their release, only to later challenge these very conditions as onerous or illegal before higher courts. This observation came during a hearing in the case of Kundan Singh Vs. Superintendent of CGST And Central Excise, where the petitioner, accused of significant Goods and Services Tax (GST) evasion, sought to modify a bail condition involving a monetary deposit.
The case involved Kundan Singh, who was arrested on March 27, 2025, for alleged GST evasion amounting to ₹13.73 crore under Sections 132(1)(a), 132(1)(i), and 132(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. When his bail application came before the High Court, his counsel submitted that a sum of ₹2.86 crore had already been deposited. Crucially, the counsel then voluntarily offered that, without prejudice to his defense, Singh was willing to deposit an additional ₹2.50 crore to the credit of the crime number within 10 days of his release. This offer included an assurance that no extension for payment would be sought, and any such application would be dismissed outright.
