Bail with excessive conditions is no bail: Supreme Court
The Court was hearing a petition by a man who was not released from jail despite being granted bail in eleven cases, as he was unable to furnish separate sureties for each case.
The Supreme Court on Thursday observed that the grant of bail with excessive conditions that the accused would find difficult to fulfil would amount to not granting bail at all [Girish Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others].
The Court made the observation while coming to the rescue of a man who was not released from prison despite being granted bail in eleven cases registered against him because he was unable to furnish separate sureties for bail in each case
A Division Bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan acknowledged that sureties are essential to ensure the presence of an accused who is released on bail.
However, if an accused is enlarged on bail in multiple cases, a balance may have to be struck between the need for sureties and fundamental rights under Article 21 (personal liberty) of the Constitution of India, the Court said.
"From time immemorial, the principle has been that the excessive bail conditions 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," the Court added while granting the petitioner, Girish Gandhi, relief.
After noting that the cases against the petitioner spanned various States, the top court directed him to furnish a personal bond and two sureties for his release on bail. The court said this bail condition would hold good for the eleven cases against the petitioner.
The Court was hearing a writ petition preferred by the one Girish Gandhi, who has been alleged to have committed offences in various parts of the country.
Gandhi has been accused in around 13 cheating cases and has been charged under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
He was accused of committing these offences in the States of Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand and Punjab.
In his plea before the apex court, Gandhi argued that although he got bail orders in 11 cases registered against him, he was not being released as he was unable to produce sureties for all these cases.
He urged for the personal bonds and surety executed by him for getting bail in a case registered in Gurugram, Haryana, to be held as sufficient for his release on bail in other cases.
The Supreme Court granted him relief and also elaborated on the difficulties faced by those who are asked to provide multiple sureties.
"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," the Court highlighted.
Advocates Prem Prakash, Aditya Harsh, and Deepali Nanda appeared for the petitioner.
Senior Advocate Garima Prasad, advocates Vishnu Shankar Jain, Ghanshyam Singh, Monika Gusain, Nupur Kumar, Niharika Tanwar, BS Rajesh Agrajit, Milind Kumar, Priya Nagar, Siddharth Goswami, Raj Bala, Aakash Sharma, Sudarshan Singh Rawat, Rachna Gandhi, S Sunil, Saakshi Singh Rawat and Mohit Kaushik, appeared for the respondents.