When Accused Is Unable To Find Sureties In Multiple Cases, Requirement To Furnish Sureties Must Be Balanced With His Fundamental Rights: SC

The Court permitted the accused to furnish the same set of sureties as surety in all the States where he was granted bail. Reiterating the principle that “excessive bail is no bail,” the Court clarified that imposing excessive and onerous conditions on the grant of bail was equivalent to “take away with the left hand, what is given with the right.”

A Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan observed, “Where the court is faced with the situation where the accused enlarged on bail is unable to find sureties, as ordered, in multiple cases, there is also a need to balance the requirement of furnishing the sureties with his or her fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. An order which would protect the person’s fundamental right under Article 21 and at the same time guarantee the presence, would be reasonable and proportionate.”

AOR Prem Prakash represented the petitioner, while Sr. A.A.G. Garima Prasad appeared for the respondents.

The petitioner was enlarged on bail in all the 13 matters set out against him spanning over six different States.

The main plea of the petitioner was that he was not in a position to furnish separate sureties in the remaining 11 bail orders. He filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking an appropriate Writ or Direction to treat the sureties already furnished in two cases in such a manner as to ensure the benefit of all the other eleven cases.

The Court noted that the petitioner had already furnished sureties in the State of Kerala and Haryana. “The remaining States are Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Punjab and Uttarakhand. In these States, even though in the cases concerned, the bail has been ordered, the petitioner is still in custody because he is unable to furnish sureties,” the Court remarked.

The Bench pointed out that in Rajasthan’s bail order, the petitioner, who hails from Haryana, was ordered to provide a local surety. It remarked that “to secure a local surety will be an arduous task for him. This condition has virtually rendered ineffective the order for bail.”

The Court relied on its decision in Moti Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1978) wherein the Bench remarked, “What is a Malayalee, Kannadiga, Tamil or Telugu to do if arrested for alleged misappropriation or theft or criminal trespass in Bastar, Port Blair Pahalgam or Chandni Chowk? He cannot have sureties owning properties in these distant places…Judicial disruption of Indian unity is surest achieved by such provincial allergies…What law prescribes the geographical discrimination implicit in asking for sureties from the court district?”

Recalling these memorable words of Justice Iyer in Moti Ram (Supra), the Bench relieved the petitioner from the direction to produce a local surety.

Consequently, the Court held, “The FIRs pending in each of the States of Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Punjab and Uttarakhand, in each State, the petitioner will furnish his personal bond for Rs. 50,000/- and furnish two sureties who shall execute the bond for Rs. 30,000/- each which shall hold good for all FIRs in the concerned State.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the petition.

Cause Title: Girish Gandhi v. The State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 617)

Appearance:

Petitioner: AOR Prem Prakash; Advocates Aditya Harsh and Deepali Nanda

Respondents: Sr. A.A.G. Garima Prasad; AOR Vishnu Shankar Jain, Monika Gusain, Nupur Kumar, Milind Kumar and Sudarshan Singh Rawat; Advocates Parth Yadav, Mani Munjal, Marbiang Khongwir, Niharika Tanwar, B.S. Rajesh Agrajit, Rajesh Chand, Jyoti Rana, Priya Nagar, Meetu Goswami, Siddharth Goswami, Aakash Sharma, Shambhavi Jaiswal, Rachna Gandhi, S. Sunil, Saakshi Singh Rawat and Mohit Kaushik

Click here to read/download the Judgment