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

It is most significant to note that the Supreme Court while leading from the front in ensuring that the legal rights of the accused are safeguarded in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Girish Gandhi vs The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 149 of 2024 and cited in Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 617 that was pronounced most recently on August 22, 2024 in the exercise of its criminal original jurisdiction has minced just no words to state in no uncertain terms 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. We see that in this case, the Apex Court found that the petitioner despite securing bail in 13 cases that were registered across various states had experienced a 'genuine' difficulty in finding multiple sureties because of which he continued to be incarcerated. It must be noted that a Bench of Apex Court comprising of Hon'ble Mr Justice BR Gavai and Hon'ble Mr Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing a writ petition that had been filed by 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.

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon'ble Mr Justice KV Viswanathan for a Bench of Apex Court comprising of Hon'ble Mr Justice BR Gavai and himself sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, "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."

As we see, the Bench then stipulates in para 2 that, "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:-

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 3 that, "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."

In brief, it must be mentioned that it is stated in para 4 that, "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."

Do note, the Bench notes in para 9 that, "To this Writ Petition, the States of Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand and Jail Superintendent Bhondsi Jail, Gurugram are arrayed as Respondent no. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 respectively. A perusal of the chart mentioned above would reveal that while in the State of Uttar Pradesh there are six FIRs, in Haryana there are two FIRs, in Punjab there is one FIR, in Rajasthan there are two FIRs and in Uttarakhand there is one FIR. There is also one FIR in Kerala where sureties have already been furnished."

It also must be noted that the Bench notes in para 15 that, "A prayer is made that the bail granted in FIR No. 222 dated 08.09.2020 registered at P.S. Tulsipur, District Balrampur, U.P. be allowed to enure to the benefit of the petitioner in connection with FIR No. 0141 of 2023 dated 21.5.2023 registered at PS Tulsipur, District Balrampur, U.P. We outrightly reject this prayer. The petitioner is at liberty to move appropriate proceedings which may be decided in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the present order. We are in the present matter only concerned as to whether insofar as the eleven FIRs are concerned in which bail has already been granted, there could be any order for consolidation of sureties and, if so, in what manner."

Needless to say, the Bench states in para 17 that, "It is undisputed that in the 13 matters set out in the chart hereinabove, the petitioner stands enlarged on bail. The bail orders have become final and have not been challenged by the prosecution. It is also undisputed that in two of them FIR no. 0030 of 2021 registered at P.S. Sadar, Gurugram and FIR No. 53 of 2020 registered at P.S. Pinarayi surety already stands furnished. The situation today is, in spite of obtaining bail in 13 cases, the petitioner has not been able to furnish sureties. There are two cases where bail has not been granted and we have already observed that the present proceedings do not concern them."

Most significantly, what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment is encapsulated in para 23 wherein it is postulated that, "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 guarantee the presence, would be reasonable and proportionate. As to what such an order should be, will again depend on the facts and circumstances of each case."

While citing a recent, relevant and remarkable case law, the Bench points out in para 24 that, "In Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51, this Court held that "imposing a condition which is impossible of compliance would be defeating the very object of release.""

As a corollary, the Bench directs in para 28 that, "Keeping the principles discussed hereinabove, we direct that for the FIRs pending in each of the States of 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 which shall hold good for all FIRs in the concerned State, for cases mentioned in the chart set out hereinabove. 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. For the State of Uttar Pradesh, the above direction shall hold good for FIR No. 1028/2020 registered at P.S. Civil Lines, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh, FIR No. 685/2020 registered at P.S. Vrindavan, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, FIR No. 309/2020 registered at P.S. Siddhartha Nagar, Siddhartha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, FIR No. 343/2020 registered at P.S. Kotwali, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, FIR No. 294/2020 registered at P.S. Sipri Bazar, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh and FIR No. 222/2020 registered at P.S. Tulsipur, Balrampur, Uttar Pradesh. Insofar as the State of Uttar Pradesh is concerned, the personal bond for Rs. 50,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs. 30,000/- shall be executed in regard to FIR No. 685/2020 registered at P.S. Vrindavan, Mathura. This personal bond and the bond of surety will enure to the benefit of all the other FIRs in the State of Uttar Pradesh mentioned in the Chart set out in Para 4 herein above."

Further, the Bench clarifies in para 29 that, "For the State of Punjab, the above direction shall hold good for the FIR No. 297/2020 registered at P.S. Kotwali, Patiala, Punjab."

Furthermore, the Bench also clarifies in para 30 that, "For the State of Rajasthan, the above direction shall hold good for the FIR No. 190/2020 registered at P.S. Savina, Udaipur, Rajasthan and FIR No. 190/2020 registered at P.S. Kotgate, Bikaner, Rajasthan. The personal bond and the sureties as directed above, insofar as the State of Rajasthan is concerned, shall be executed in regard to FIR No. 190/2020 registered at P.S. Savina, Udaipur. This personal bond and the bond of surety will enure to the benefit of the other FIR registered in the State of Rajasthan as mentioned in the Chart set out in Para 4 herein above."

In addition, the Bench clarifies in para 31 that, "For the State of Uttarakhand, the above direction shall hold good for the FIR No. 146/2020 registred at P.S. Jwalapur, Haridwar, Uttarakhand."

Finally, the Bench then further clarifies in para 32 stating that, "This condition will supersede the condition imposed in the respective bail orders. We repeat that we have not dealt with FIR No. 608 of 2022 dated 13.09.2022 registered at P.S. Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow, U.P., FIR No. 141 of 2023 dated 21.05.2023 registered at P.S. Tulsipur, District Balrampur, U.P. and FIR No. 230 of 2020 registered at P.S. Sadarpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan or any other FIR other than the one mentioned in the chart mentioned in para 4 hereinabove which the petitioner may be involved with. Petitioner may pursue independent proceedings with regard to those matters."

In conclusion, we thus see that the Apex Court has made it indubitably clear that if an accused who is given bail in multiple cases is unable to find sureties, the condition of multiple sureties must be balanced with Article 21. We must note that the Apex Court observed that the petitioner despite securing bail in 13 cases registered across many States had experienced a 'genuine difficulty in finding multiple sureties due to which he continued to be incarcerated. So the Apex Court ultimately decided to grant bail to the petitioner subject to fulfilling certain conditions as stated hereinabove. No denying or disputing it!