On Thursday, the Supreme Court observed that granting bail with excessive conditions, which the accused cannot meet, effectively amounts to denying bail altogether [Girish Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others].
The Court made this observation while assisting a man who remained in prison despite being granted bail in eleven cases, as he was unable to provide separate sureties for each case.
A Division Bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan recognized that sureties are necessary to ensure the presence of an accused released on bail. However, the Court emphasized the need to strike a balance between requiring sureties and upholding the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 21 (personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution when an accused is granted bail in multiple cases.
The Court stated, “The principle has always been that excessive bail conditions equate to no bail at all. Granting bail and then imposing excessive and burdensome conditions takes away with the left hand what is given with the right.” The Court granted relief to the petitioner, Girish Gandhi.
Considering that the cases against the petitioner were spread across various states, the Supreme Court directed him to furnish a personal bond and two sureties for his release on bail. This bail condition would apply to all eleven cases against him.
The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by Girish Gandhi, who is accused of multiple offenses across different parts of the country, including around 13 cheating cases under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The alleged offenses occurred in Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, and Punjab.
In his plea, Gandhi argued that although he had been granted bail in 11 cases, he remained in custody as he was unable to produce sureties for each case. He requested that the personal bonds and surety executed for a case in Gurugram, Haryana, be deemed sufficient for his release in the other cases.
The Supreme Court granted his request and also shed light on the challenges faced by individuals required to provide multiple sureties.
The Court noted, “Whether it’s finding people to stand as guarantors for a loan or as sureties in criminal proceedings, the options are very limited. Usually, it is a close relative or a long-time friend. In criminal matters, the circle narrows further as people tend to avoid disclosing their criminal proceedings to protect their reputation. These are the harsh realities of life in our country, and as a court of law, we cannot ignore them. A solution must be found strictly within the legal framework.”
Advocates Prem Prakash, Aditya Harsh, and Deepali Nanda represented the petitioner, while Senior Advocate Garima Prasad and 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.
