In a landmark judgment underscoring the principles of justice and fairness, the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Girish Gandhi vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 149 of 2024), has ruled that excessive bail conditions can effectively negate the very right to bail, which is constitutionally protected under Article 21. The judgment, delivered by Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, has far-reaching implications on the criminal justice system, particularly regarding the conditions imposed on bail, such as the requirement for multiple sureties.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Girish Gandhi, was involved in multiple criminal cases across six states, stemming from his association with White Blue Retail Pvt. Ltd., a company accused of fraudulent activities through misleading franchise agreements. As many as 13 FIRs were registered against him, including charges under sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code.
Despite being granted bail in all these cases, Gandhi remained in custody because he could not secure the required sureties in each case, which was a precondition for his release. He sought relief from the Supreme Court, arguing that his inability to furnish sureties should not deprive him of his liberty, a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Legal Issues Involved
The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner could be compelled to furnish separate sureties in each case, especially when doing so was practically impossible for him, thus rendering the bail orders ineffective. The case raised critical questions about:
1. Excessive Bail Conditions: Whether imposing multiple sureties as a condition for bail, particularly in multiple cases, is justifiable when it effectively denies the accused his right to liberty.
2. Interpretation of Section 441 of CrPC: The provision requires a bond with sureties for granting bail, but the court had to consider if the same surety could be used across multiple cases.
3. Balancing Judicial Orders with Constitutional Rights: The court had to balance the requirements of securing the presence of the accused with his fundamental rights under Article 21.
Court’s Decision and Observations
In its judgment, the Supreme Court made several important observations:
– Excessive Bail is No Bail: The court reiterated that “excessive bail is no bail,” emphasizing that onerous conditions imposed alongside bail orders can effectively negate the right to bail. It noted that what constitutes “excessive” must be assessed based on the facts of each case.
– Practical Difficulties in Finding Sureties: The court acknowledged the real-world challenges faced by individuals in securing sureties, particularly when the accused is involved in multiple cases spread across different states. It recognized the narrow circle of individuals, typically close relatives or friends, who can act as sureties, and the reluctance of others to take on such responsibilities.
– Right to Liberty: The court highlighted that the requirement for multiple sureties in separate cases, where the accused has already been granted bail, disproportionately infringes on the accused’s right to liberty under Article 21. The court stressed the need to balance this right with the requirement of ensuring the accused’s presence at trial.
Final Directions
The Supreme Court issued specific directions to address the petitioner’s predicament:
– Single Set of Sureties Across Multiple Cases: The court directed that in states where multiple FIRs were registered, a single set of sureties would suffice. For instance, in the state of Uttar Pradesh, the sureties provided in one case would apply to all other FIRs within the state.
– Modification of Bail Orders: The court modified the bail conditions to require that the petitioner furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of Rs. 30,000 each, applicable across all cases within each state. This modification was aimed at making the bail orders effective and ensuring the petitioner’s release.
– Local Surety Condition: The court also struck down the condition imposed by one of the lower courts that required a local surety, terming it as unreasonable and virtually nullifying the bail order.
Also Read
Case Details
– Case Title: Girish Gandhi vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
– Case Number: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 149 of 2024
– Court: Supreme Court of India
– Bench: Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
– Date of Judgment: August 22, 2024
– Petitioner: Girish Gandhi
– Respondents: The State of Uttar Pradesh, The State of Haryana, The State of Punjab, The State of Rajasthan, The State of Uttarakhand, and the Jail Superintendent, Bhondsi Jail, Gurugram
– Petitioner’s Counsel: Mr. Prem Prakash
– Respondents’ Counsel: Senior Counsels and Counsels representing the respective States
