Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 617
Cause Title: Girish Gandhi v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 149 OF 2024
Judgment Date: 22nd August 2024
Quorum/Bench: K.V. Viswanathan, J.
Paragraph 17: "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."
Paragraph 23: "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."
Submission of Appellant:
The petitioner, Girish Gandhi, argues that he is unable to furnish separate sureties for multiple bail orders due to financial and logistical difficulties and seeks that the sureties furnished in one case be recognized for others.
Submission of Respondent:
The States involved contend that sureties must be specific to each case, and the petitioner’s request to use one set of sureties for multiple cases is contrary to the legal requirement of individual surety bonds for each FIR.
Decision:
The Supreme Court directed that the petitioner’s personal bond and sureties furnished in one FIR can be used for all FIRs in the same state, thereby easing the burden of providing separate sureties for each case. This consolidation applies to FIRs across several states, balancing the petitioner’s rights with the legal requirements.
Comments