This order does not grant bail afresh, does not decide the merits of the CGST prosecution, and does not waive the surety or passport conditions altogether. It only modifies them so that the existing bail order can take effect, and release follows only if the modified conditions are fulfilled.
- Case
- Nilesh Yogesh Jagiwala @ Nilesh Jagiwala @ Neil v. Union of India (CGST)
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decision
- Bench
- Manoj Misra; Manmohan
- Case numbers
- Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 19796/2026
- Outcome
- Criminal Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 19796/2026 disposed of in the modified terms: one local surety suffices, the second surety may be any surety to the Magistrate's satisfaction, and proof of passport deposit with an undertaking replaces fresh deposit. The underlying prosecution remains undecided.
What the Court decided
On 28 October 2026, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal of Nilesh Yogesh Jagiwala, also known as Nilesh Jagiwala and Neil, by modifying the conditions of a bail order that the appellant had been unable to avail of.
The appeal sought modification of the bail condition to the extent it required the bail applicant to submit two local sureties. The Court directed that, in place of two local sureties, one local surety shall suffice and the other surety may be any one to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate.
It further directed that, instead of depositing the passport, the appellant shall furnish proof of deposit of the passport along with an undertaking that he will not seek release of the passport, where it is already deposited, without permission of the trial court. If the modified conditions are fulfilled, the appellant shall be released pursuant to the bail order concerned.
Why the bail order could not take effect
The appellant's case was that the other bail conditions had already been fulfilled, but the condition of submitting local sureties had been fulfilled only to the extent of one local surety. He was not in a position to obtain the other local surety, as a result of which he had not been able to derive the fruits of the bail order.
On the passport condition, the appellant submitted that the passport had already been deposited with CGST Belapur, and that proof of that deposit had been annexed as Annexure P-9. The Court's modification therefore does not create a new indulgence on the passport: it recognises a deposit that, on the appellant's submission, has already been made.
The appeal arose out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 19796/2026, against the final judgment and order dated 24 September 2026 in CRLMA No. 86/2026 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack. Leave was granted, and the Bench comprised Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan.
The two modifications, in full
The first modification concerns sureties. Two local sureties were required; now one local surety suffices, and the other surety may be any one to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate. The order does not dispense with sureties: it lowers the locality requirement for the second surety only.
The second modification concerns the passport. Instead of depositing the passport, the appellant shall furnish proof of deposit of the passport along with an undertaking that he will not seek release of the passport, where it is already deposited, without permission of the trial court. The undertaking therefore preserves the trial court's control over the passport even though no fresh deposit is made.
Both modifications are stated as directions of the Court, having regard to the submissions recorded in the order. The order does not record any opposition from the Union of India in terms, and this article draws no conclusion about the respondent's stand beyond what the order states.
What happens on fulfilment
The operative consequence is conditional, and the order states it expressly: if the modified conditions, as directed, are fulfilled, the appellant shall be released pursuant to the bail order concerned. Until then, no release follows from this order alone.
The appeal itself is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, and pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. The order decides nothing about the CGST prosecution itself, and it does not record the nature of the underlying allegations beyond identifying the respondent as the Union of India (CGST).
The practical point of the order is therefore narrow but real: a bail order that cannot be complied with is, for the accused, no bail at all, and the Court has adjusted the conditions to the appellant's demonstrated position rather than leaving the grant illusory.
What this order does not do
This order does not grant bail for the first time, and it does not hold that surety or passport conditions are generally unnecessary. It modifies the conditions of an existing bail order on the specific facts recorded: one local surety furnished, a second unobtainable, and a passport already deposited with CGST Belapur.
It also does not remove judicial control. The second surety must still satisfy the concerned Magistrate, and the passport may not be sought back without the trial court's permission. Those safeguards remain, in modified form, part of the bail regime.
A reader who cites this order for a general proposition should therefore cite it for what it is: a fact-specific modification to make an existing bail grant workable, not a rule that one surety always suffices or that passport deposit is never required.
BANTHRY ANALYSISFor law students
This order is a useful counterpoint to bail grants themselves. Much of bail litigation is about whether bail should be granted at all; this case is about the second step, whether the conditions attached to a grant are capable of being fulfilled. A condition that cannot be met in practice defeats the grant it qualifies.
Notice how the Court reasons from the appellant's demonstrated position rather than from principle alone: one surety furnished, proof of deposit annexed, and a specific obstacle to the second surety. When you argue a modification application, that is the record you need: what has been complied with, what cannot be complied with, and what substitute safeguard you offer.
READING PROMPTSQuestions for a closer reading
- Why did the existing bail conditions prevent the appellant from actually being released?
- What exactly did the Court substitute for the second local surety and for deposit of the passport?
- Why does this order not amount to a fresh grant of bail or a view on the merits?
