If Accused Given Bail In Multiple Cases Is Unable To Find Sureties, Condition Of Multiple Sureties Be Balanced With Article 21 : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today (August 22) held that if an accused, involved in multiple cases, is enlarged on bail and is unable to find multiple sureties, the court must balance the requirement of sureties with his right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21.

In this case, the court found that the petitioner, despite securing bail in 13 cases registered across various states, experienced a 'genuine' difficulty in finding multiple sureties, because of which he continued to be incarcerated.

Taking note of the sitatuin, the Court observed : "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."

A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Vishwanathan was hearing a writ petition filed by one Girish Gandhi under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking that the personal bonds and sureties executed by him in one case shall hold good in other cases as well.

The respondent States, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Punjab and Uttarakhand, where the FIRs are pending, contended that for each crime number, a separate surety is required and a particular surety cannot be made liable to pay the amount in excess of the amount of bond that the surety has furnished.

The Court, rejecting the arguments of the respondents, termed that furnishing individual surety may amount to imposing excessive bail conditions. In this regard, it said: "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."

The Court referred to the Oxford Dictionary meaning of 'surety', which is “a person who takes responsibility for another's obligation”. It also referred to Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar, which defines 'surety' to mean “the bail that undertakes for another man in a criminal case.”

Highlighting the limited choices that may be faced by individuals to find sureties, the Court said: "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."

It remarked that in cases where multiple sureties are to be furnished, the court must grant 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."

It added: "As to what such an order should be, will again depend on the facts and circumstances of each case."

The court therefore ordered that for pending FIRs in 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. This shall hold good for all FIRs in the concerned State, the court added.

The court said: "The same set of sureties is permitted to stand as surety in all the States. We feel that this direction will meet the ends of justice and will be proportionate and reasonable."

Case Details: Girish Gandhi v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., WP (Crl) No. 149 of 2024.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 593

Click Here To Read/Download Order.