Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, K.V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
Girish Gandhi – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 149 of 2024
Decided On : 22-08-2024
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 441 and 446 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 485 and 491] – Constitution of India – Article 21 – Bond of accused and sureties – Cases against petitioner span over six States – Whether it is to get individuals, to stand as a guarantor for a loan transaction or as a surety in a criminal proceeding, choice for a person is very limited – Excessive bail is no bail – To grant bail and thereafter to impose excessive and onerous conditions, is to take away with left hand what is given with right – In present case, petitioner is experiencing a genuine difficulty in finding multiple sureties – Sureties are essential to ensure presence of accused, released on bail – At the same time, where court is faced with situation where accused enlarged on bail is unable to find sureties, as ordered, in multiple cases, there is also a need to balance requirement of furnishing sureties with his or her fundamental rights under Article 21 of Constitution of India – An order which would protect person’s fundamental right under Article 21 and at the same time guarantee presence, would be reasonable and proportionate – Same set of sureties permitted to stand as surety in all States. (Paras 20, 21, 22, 23 and 28)
Facts of the case:
Present Writ Petition, under Article 32 of Constitution of India, has been filed by petitioner seeking appropriate Writ or Direction to the effect that personal bonds and sureties executed by petitioner in connection with FIR dated 21.01.2021 registered at P.S. Sadar, District Gurugram, shall hold good for eleven other bail orders passed in his favour from Courts of different States.
Findings of Court:
It will very often be a close relative or a long time friend. In a criminal proceeding, circle may get even more narrowed as normal tendency is to not disclose about said criminal proceeding to relatives and friends, to protect one’s reputation. These are hard realities of life in our country and as a court of law we cannot shut our eyes to them. A solution, however, has to be found strictly within framework of the law.
Result : Writ Petition allowed.
Key Points: - It was held that excessive bail is no bail and that blanket or onerous post-bail conditions can violate Article 21 while ensuring presence (!) - The Court permitted using the same set of sureties across multiple states for multiple FIRs to ease bail compliance (!) (!) - The Court authorized consolidated personal bonds and fixed-sum sureties for specified FIRs in Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Punjab, and Uttarakhand, enuring to all relevant cases in those states, while noting exceptions for certain FIRs not covered (!) (!) (!) (!) - The matter involved balancing the accused’s fundamental rights with the need to secure appearance in court across multiple jurisdictions (!) - The court cited prior rulings and directives on bail strategy, including relief from local surety requirements where burdensome (!) (!) (!) - The writ petition was allowed in terms of the directions provided, consolidating bail bonds across multiple FIRs under the specified arrangement (!)
JUDGMENT :
K.V. VISWANATHAN, J.
1. The present Writ Petition, under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner-Girish Gandhi seeking an appropriate Writ or Direction to the effect that the personal bonds and sureties executed by the petitioner in connection with FIR No. 0030 of 2021 dated 21.01.2021 registered at P.S. Sadar, District Gurugram, shall hold good for eleven other bail orders passed in his favour from the Courts of different States. Details of the bail orders in different FIRs have been elaborated herein-below.
2. The question that arises for consideration is, is the petitioner entitled to the relief of treating the personal bond and one set of sureties already furnished as holding good for the other bail orders also?
Brief Facts:
3. Very broadly, the prosecution case is that the company in which the petitioner was concerned with, namely, White Blue Retail Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Company’) allowed the use of its trade name through franchisee agreement for opening of Grocery Shops. The Company also took the franchisee amounts and refundable security. The substratum of the allegation is that the Company which was to give space to open store on rent in some cases; 5% commission on monthly sale in some; 10% margin on goods sales in some others; 12% interest as dividend on investment in a few and minimum 24% profit in certain agreements, failed in its promise.
4. Totally, 13 FIRs came to be registered against the petitioner under various Sections viz. 406, 420 and 506 of IPC. The petitioner has been granted the benefit of bail with the conditions in all of them. A chart setting out the FIR nos. and the place where the FIR is registered and the bail conditions are set out herein-below:
| List of Bail Orders | |||
| S. No. | FIR No. | Place of FIR | Bail Conditions |
| 1. | 190/2020 | P.S. Savina, Udaipur, Rajasthan | Personal Bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- including one local surety. |
| 2. | 1028/2020 | P.S. Civil Lines, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh | Personal Bond and furnishing of two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court (amount not mentioned). |
| 3. | 685/2020 | P.S. Vrindavan, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh | Personal Bond and furnishing of two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court (amount not mentioned). |
| 4. | 190/2020 | P.S. Kotgate, Bikaner, Rajasthan | Personal Bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each. |
| 5. | 309/2020 | P.S. Siddhartha Nagar, Siddhartha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh | Personal Bond of Rs. 75,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 75,000/- each. |
| 6. | 146/2020 | P.S. Jwalapur, Haridwar, Uttarakhand | Personal Bond and furnishing of two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court (amount not mentioned). |
| 7. | 53/2020 | P.S. Pinarayi, Pinarayi, Kerala | Personal Bond of Rs. 10,000/- and two solvent sureties of Rs. 10,000/- each. |
| 8. | 343/2020 | P.S. Kotwali, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh | Personal Bond and furnishing of two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court (amount not mentioned). |
| 9. | 294/2020 | P.S. Sipri Bazar, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh | Personal Bond and furnishing of two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court (amount not mentioned). |
| 10. | 30/2021 | P.S. Sadar, Gurugram, Haryana | Personal Bail Bonds with sum of Rs.50,000/- and one surety of Rs.50,000/-. |
| 11. | 521/2020 | P.S. Sadar, Gurugram, Haryana | Fixed Deposit Receipts in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. |
| 12. | 297/2020 | P.S. Kotwali, Patiala, Punjab | Personal Bond and furnishing of two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court. |
| 13. | 222/2020 | P.S. Tulsipur, Balrampur, Uttar Pradesh | Furnishing a Personal Bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the |
(1) Excessive bail is no bail – To grant bail and thereafter to impose excessive and onerous conditions, is to take away with left hand what is given with right.(2) In case of multiple FIRs, Same set....
Excessive bail conditions may infringe on the fundamental right to liberty, necessitating a balance with attending trial requirements.
Bail amounts should depend on the accused's financial circumstances, prioritizing personal bonds over sureties to prevent undue hardship.
Imposition of bail conditions should not discriminate against individuals based on their place of residence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
