Bail with Excessive Bail Conditions Is No Bail: Supreme Court

Vishwa Pratap Singh,

Delhi Metropolitan Education

Abstract – 

The Supreme Court on 22nd August, 2024 delivered one of the significant landmark judgements on addressing a complex issue regarding the application of sureties across multiple bail orders in different states. The petitioner, Girish Gandhi, implicated with 13 FIRs registered against him across six states, challenged the requirement to furnish separate sureties for each FIRs. He sought relief under article 32 of the Constitution[i].

Background of the case – 

Girish Gandhi, in an association with Blue Retail Pvt. Ltd. (online retail company that helps brands succeed in e-commerce marketplaces) was compromised with 13 FIRs which included various sections of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sarthak, namely cheating, criminal breach of trust and criminal intimidation across states of U.P, Rajasthan, Haryana, Punjab, Uttarakhand and Kerala. The key issue that lies within the case is whether the petitioner could use the same sureties for all bail orders or if different sureties were needed for each case. The petitioner claimed he could not provide separate sureties because of money issues and personal situations. He stated that since he had already given sureties for two cases, those should be enough for the other cases too.

Key Findings of the Court – 

Hon'ble Justice K.V. Viswanathan, in his judgement, pointed out the difficulties people encounter in obtaining several sureties, especially when their cases involve different jurisdictions. The Court observed:

“The petitioner is having real trouble finding several sureties. Sureties are important to guarantee that the accused, who is out on bail, will show up. However, when the court sees that the accused cannot find the required sureties in several cases, it must also consider the need for sureties alongside the accused's basic rights under Article 21[ii] of the Constitution of India.”

The judgement delivered was based on the principle that emphasises the fact that ‘excessive bail is no bail, rather jail’ which states that imposing that where a person faces conditions which have overindulgent effect in nature would defeat the purpose of granting bail. The Court referred to the decision in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI [iii], where it was held that conditions of bail should not be so stringent that they render the relief ineffective.

The Supreme Court acknowledged the challenges faced by the petitioner and ordered that for all pending FIRs in each state, the petitioner must provide a personal bond along with two sureties. This arrangement would cover all FIRs in that state. The same sureties could be used for FIRs in different states, easing the petitioner’s need to find new sureties for each individual case. The Supreme Court also reaffirmed the principle established in Moti Ram & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh [iv], in which Justice Krishna Iyer condemned the requirement for sureties from particular districts as an unwarranted obstacle to obtaining bail.

Implications of the Judgement – 

This has far reached implications on the bail condition being ordered in each district. It lays down principle while admitting consolidated sureties wherein a person is compromised with various FIRs in more than one state. This is because it strikes a balance between ensuring the presence of the accused in court and these fundamental rights afforded under article 21 of the constitution that is Right to life and personal liberty. Reiterating that bail should not be used as a tool of oppression but rather ensure that accused persons observe the process of law that eases the burden on the compromised accused person, accused with various charges spread across other states.

Conclusion – 

Girish Gandhi v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Judgment thus sets as an important step in the direction of making a more balanced and accessible bail structure. Tackling the real challenges posed to a person while soliciting multiple sureties, The Supreme Court had offered a more humane understanding of the law - being in concert with the constitutional rights to personal freedom. This ruling reminds lawyers and courts that justice must take into account the real situations of people in the legal system. The principles established in this case will serve directions for future cases with similar issues, ensuring that the right to bail remains meaningful and not a mere formality due to unreasonable conditions.

References

[i] Article 32 of Constitution of India.

[ii] Ibid 

[iii] Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation (2022) 10 S.C.C. 51 (India) 

[iv] Moti Ram v. State of Madhya Padesh, (1978) 4 SCC 47 (India)