255 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 17.09.2025 Rachneet Kaur Jaggi ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY Present: Mr. Munish Behl, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikram Singh, AAG, Haryana.

***

AARADHNA SAWHNEY , J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed by the petitioner, an accused praying for issuing appropriate directions to the learned trial Court/CJM, Ambala, to allow her to furnish surety bonds, in all the 31 cases (the details mentioned in para 3 of the petition), in which she has been released on bail, by single individual on the ground that she is not in a position to arrange 31 different persons to furnish surety.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and is facing trial in 31 criminal cases at Ambala. She has been granted the concession of bail in each of the above mentioned 31 cases but is not in a position to arrange separate sureties in these cases. The condition so imposed is onerous and if not modified, would negate the orders vide which she (petitioner) was granted the concession of bail. That apart, it would be violative of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Reliance has been placed upon following judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court:

“Girish Gandhi Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others”, Writ petition (Criminal) No.149 of 2024, decided on 22.08.2024, wherein it was held as under:-

20. As set out earlier, the cases against the petitioner span over six States. Insofar as the case in Kerala is concerned, he has already furnished sureties and there is only one case in that State. Insofar as Haryana is concerned, of the two cases, he has furnished sureties in one and in the other case what has been ordered is Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. We do not propose to interfere with this order. 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.

21. The Oxford Dictionary defines ‘surety’ as “a person who takes responsibility for another’s obligation”. Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Edition 2005 defines ‘surety’ to mean “the bail that undertakes for another man in a criminal case.”

22. Whether it is to get individuals, to stand as a guarantor for a loan transaction or as a Surety in a criminal proceeding, the choice for a person is very limited. It will very often be a close relative or a longtime friend. In a criminal proceeding, the circle may get even more narrowed as the normal tendency is to not disclose about the 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 the framework of the law.

23. From time immemorial, the principle has been that the excessive bail is no bail. To grant bail and thereafter to impose excessive and onerous conditions, is to take away with the left hand, what is given with the right. As to what is excessive will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, the petitioner is experiencing a genuine difficulty in finding multiple sureties. Sureties are essential to ensure the presence of the accused, released on bail. At the same time, 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 guar