Summary
An accused who had been granted bail in many FIRs across several States but stayed in custody because he could not find separate sureties for each was allowed, under Article 32, one personal bond and one set of two sureties per State, covering all listed FIRs in that State; the same sureties could stand in every State. The Court treated excessive or impossible bail conditions as a denial of bail, balanced the need for sureties against Article 21, and removed a condition requiring a local surety.
Issues
- Whether an accused granted bail in multiple FIRs in different States, who cannot furnish separate sureties in each, can have the personal bond and sureties consolidated so that one set holds good for several cases.
- How the requirement of sureties under Sections 441 and 446 CrPC is to be balanced against the accused's right to liberty under Article 21.
- Whether a bail condition requiring a local surety from an accused belonging to another State should be maintained.
Provisions considered
- Section 441, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Quoted as the provision requiring a bond from the accused and, on release on bail, one or more sufficient sureties conditioned on attendance. The Court accepted that sureties are essential to secure the presence of the accused, but shaped the surety requirement to make it workable for multiple cases. (¶¶ 18, 23, 28)
- Section 446, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Quoted as the procedure on forfeiture of a bond, in the context of the States' objection that a surety cannot be made liable beyond the amount of the bond furnished in a particular case. (¶¶ 11, 19)
- Article 21, Constitution of IndiaWhere an accused on bail cannot find sureties in multiple cases, the surety requirement must be balanced against his right to liberty. An order that protects that right while securing his presence is reasonable and proportionate. (¶ 23)
- Article 32, Constitution of IndiaThe writ petition was entertained and allowed under Article 32 to modify the surety conditions in the bail orders passed by courts in different States. (¶¶ 1, 28, 32, 33)
Held
- Excessive bail is no bail. Granting bail and then imposing excessive or onerous conditions takes away what is given; what is excessive depends on the facts, and, as held in Satender Kumar Antil, a condition impossible of compliance defeats the object of release. (¶¶ 23, 24)
- Courts must recognise the practical difficulty of finding sureties, who are usually close relatives or friends, especially in criminal cases, but the solution must stay within the law. Where an accused cannot find sureties in multiple cases, the court should make an order that protects his Article 21 rights and still secures his presence; its form depends on the facts of each case. (¶¶ 22, 23)
- Relying on Hani Nishad v. State of U.P., where one bond and one set of sureties were allowed for 31 cases in a single State, and the directions in In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, the Court directed that, for the listed FIRs in each of Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Punjab and Uttarakhand, the petitioner furnish one personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of Rs. 30,000 each, holding good for all listed FIRs in that State, with the same sureties permitted in all States. These conditions supersede those in the individual bail orders. (¶¶ 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32)
- A condition to produce a local surety, imposed on an accused who belongs to another State, effectively nullified the bail order; following Moti Ram v. State of M.P. and the direction in In Re Policy Strategy that courts may avoid insisting on local sureties, the petitioner was relieved of that condition. (¶¶ 26, 27)
- The order does not extend to FIRs not in the chart, including those in which bail had not been granted; the prayer to extend bail granted in one Balrampur FIR to a later FIR under the U.P. Gangsters Act was rejected, with liberty to pursue separate proceedings. The Haryana FDR condition and the Kerala and Gurugram cases, where sureties were already furnished, were left undisturbed. (¶¶ 14, 15, 20, 32)
Result
Writ petition allowed. For the listed FIRs in each of Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Punjab and Uttarakhand, one personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of Rs. 30,000 each to hold good for all listed FIRs in that State (executed in the Vrindavan FIR for U.P. and the Udaipur FIR for Rajasthan); same sureties may stand in all States; local surety condition removed; these terms supersede the earlier bail conditions. Other FIRs left to independent proceedings.