Excessive bail conditions infringe on fundamental rights; courts must ensure reasonable bail terms that accommodate the realities faced by the accused.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 32 - Code of Criminal Procedure - Sections 441 and 446 - Writ Petition for consolidation of sureties across multiple bail orders - Petitioner sought to treat personal bonds and sureties for one FIR as applicable to others - Court emphasized the need for reasonable bail conditions that do not infringe on fundamental rights under Article 21. (Paras 1, 2, 17, 23, 28, 33)

(B) Bail - Conditions - Excessive bail conditions may defeat the purpose of bail - Court must balance the requirement of sureties with the accused's rights. (Paras 23, 24)

(C) Surety - Definition and implications in criminal proceedings - The court recognized the practical difficulties faced by the accused in securing multiple sureties. (Paras 21, 22)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, facing multiple FIRs related to financial misconduct, sought to consolidate sureties already provided for one FIR to apply to others, citing financial hardship and family responsibilities.

Findings of Court:
The court allowed the petitioner's request, permitting the same set of sureties to apply across multiple FIRs, thereby easing the burden on the petitioner.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner could use existing sureties for multiple bail orders.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that imposing excessive surety conditions is unreasonable and that the law must accommodate the realities faced by the accused, ensuring their fundamental rights are protected.

Result: Writ petition allowed.

J U D G M E N T

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 hereinbelow.

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 hereinbelow:

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 satisfaction of the Court concerned.

5. The petitioner submits that he has already furnished personal bail bonds with a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and one surety of Rs. 50,000/- in the Trial Court in respect of FIR no. 0030 of 2021 registered at P.S. Sadar, Gurugram. The petitioner also submits that he has fulfilled the conditions of bail with respect to the ord

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(SC) 7958

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAGIRISH GANDHI – AppellantVersusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH – RespondentW.P.(Crl.) No.-000149 - 2024

Excessive bail conditions infringe on fundamental rights; courts must ensure reasonable bail terms that accommodate the realities faced by the accused.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
GIRISH GANDHI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH – Respondent
W.P.(Crl.) No.-000149 - 2024