Breach of a Solemn Undertaking Given to Secure Bail Constitutes Punishable Civil Contempt

The respondent was granted bail in multiple matters (M.Cr.C. Nos. 21630/2023, 9974/2024, and 21500/2024) based on his solemn undertaking to settle legitimate dues exceeding Rs. 50,00,000/- within a stipulated timeframe

Despite multiple extensions granted by the Court and a specific direction to deposit Rs. 50,00,000/- by the last hearing date, the respondent paid only Rs. 10,00,000/- and failed to deposit any further amount

The respondent contended that payment was contingent upon a one-time settlement with his bank regarding loan repayments for flats, a plea the petitioners argued was a pretext to evade the Court's order

1. Whether the breach of a solemn undertaking given to the Court for the purpose of obtaining bail constitutes "civil contempt" under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

2. Whether the respondent's failure to comply with the specific directions to deposit the settlement amount warrants penal consequences under Section 12 of the Act.

Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which defines "civil contempt" as the willful disobedience of any judgment or breach of an undertaking given to a court

Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai Contractor (AIR 2023 SC 4390), which establishes that a party's "undertaking" or "solemn promise," upon which a court sanctions a particular course of action, is an implied undertaking to the court; breach of such a conviction constitutes misconduct amounting to contempt

Punishment was governed by Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act

The Court observed that the respondent secured his liberty (bail) specifically by furnishing an undertaking to settle the petitioners' claims

The Court reasoned that the respondent was granted repeated indulgences and extensions—first four months, then two and a half months, and finally a "last chance" of ten days—yet failed to fulfill the promise

Applying the Balwantbhai principle, the Court found that the respondent’s failure to deposit the directed Rs. 50,00,000/-, despite specific orders, was not a mere inability but a willful evasion of a solemn promise made to the Court

The respondent's defense regarding pending bank settlements was rejected as it did not absolve him of the undertaking used to obtain the initial bail

The respondent was sentenced to three months of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-

The respondent was directed to surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gwalior, on 29.04.2026

Additionally, the Court granted the petitioners liberty to move an application for the cancellation of the respondent's bail. The petition was disposed of with these directions