Girish Gandhi vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 678

B. R. GAVAI, K. V. VISWANATHAN
Girish Gandhi – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Prem Prakash, AOR Mr. Aditya Harsh, Adv. Ms. Deepali Nanda, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Garima Prasad, Sr.A.A.G. Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain, AOR Mr. Parth Yadav, Adv. Ms. Mani Munjal, Adv. Ms. Marbiang Khongwir, Adv. Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR Ms. Nupur Kumar, AOR Ms. Niharika Tanwar, Adv. Mr. B.S. Rajesh Agrajit, Adv. Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR Mr. Rajesh Chand, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Rana, Adv. Ms. Priya Nagar, Adv. Ms. Meetu Goswami, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Goswami, Adv. Mr. Aakash Sharma, Adv. Ms. Shambhavi Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat, AOR Ms. Rachna Gandhi,Adv. Mr. S. Sunil,Adv. Ms. Saakshi Singh Rawat,Adv. Mr. Mohit Kaushik,Adv.

Judgement Key Points

Question 1? Question 2? Question 3?

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 (!)

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?

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 spac

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(SC) 678

B. R. GAVAI, K. V. VISWANATHANGirish Gandhi – AppellantVersusState of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?

Cases Referred (4)

B. R. GAVAI, K. V. VISWANATHAN
Girish Gandhi – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent