Summary of the Judgement
Case Name: Girish Gandhi v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Date: 22nd August 2024
Judges: Hon'ble Justice B.R. Gavai and Hon'ble Justice K.V. Viswanathan
Advocates: Mr. Prem Prakash for the Petitioner; State counsels for the Respondents
Acts & Sections: Article 32 of the Constitution of India, Sections 406, 420, 506, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
Cited Judgements:
Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51
Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (SLP (Criminal) Nos. 8914-8915 of 2018)
Moti Ram & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1978) 4 SCC 47
In Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail (2023 SCC OnLine SC 483)
Introduction
The Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgement on 22nd August 2024 in the case of Girish Gandhi v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., addressing a complex issue regarding the application of personal bonds and sureties across multiple bail orders in different states. The petitioner, Girish Gandhi, had sought relief under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging the requirement to furnish separate sureties for each of the thirteen FIRs registered against him across six states.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, associated with White Blue Retail Pvt. Ltd., was implicated in multiple FIRs under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, primarily dealing with cheating, criminal breach of trust, and criminal intimidation. The FIRs spanned across different states, including Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Haryana, Punjab, Uttarakhand, and Kerala. The central issue before the Court was whether the petitioner could be allowed to use the same set of sureties for all the bail orders or if separate sureties were required for each case.
The petitioner contended that he was unable to furnish separate sureties due to financial constraints and personal circumstances. He argued that since he had already provided sureties in two of the cases, these should be considered sufficient for the remaining cases as well.
Court's Observations
Hon'ble Justice K.V. Viswanathan, delivering the judgement, highlighted the hardships faced by individuals in securing multiple sureties, particularly when the cases are spread across different jurisdictions. The Court observed:
"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."
The judgement acknowledged the principle that "excessive bail is no bail," emphasizing that imposing conditions impossible to comply with would defeat the purpose of granting bail. The Court referred to the decision in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) where it was held that conditions of bail should not be so stringent that they render the relief ineffective.
Key Findings and Directions
The Supreme Court, while recognizing the petitioner's difficulties, directed that for FIRs pending in each state, the petitioner would furnish his personal bond and two sureties which would suffice for all FIRs within that state. The same set of sureties could be used across the FIRs in different states, thereby relieving the petitioner from the burden of securing new sureties for each case.
The Court specifically pointed out the problematic nature of the requirement for local sureties, as seen in the case registered at P.S. Savina, Udaipur, Rajasthan. It reiterated the principle from Moti Ram & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1978), where Justice Krishna Iyer had criticized the demand for sureties from specific districts as an unnecessary barrier to securing 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," remarked the Court, underscoring the need for a more pragmatic approach in bail matters.
The judgement also referenced the guidelines laid down in the In Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail case (2023 SCC OnLine SC 483), where it was suggested that courts should avoid imposing the condition of local surety and should consider modifying bail conditions if they remain unmet for an extended period.
Implications of the Judgement
This judgment has far-reaching implications for the application of bail conditions across jurisdictions. It sets a precedent for allowing consolidated sureties in cases where multiple FIRs are registered against an individual in different states. This approach balances the need for ensuring the accused's presence in court with the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court's decision to permit the same sureties to be used across different FIRs will likely ease the burden on accused persons, particularly those facing multiple charges in different states. It also reinforces the principle that bail should not be a tool of oppression but rather a means to ensure the accused's compliance with legal proceedings.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's decision in Girish Gandhi v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. is a notable step towards making the bail system more equitable and accessible. By addressing the practical challenges faced by individuals in securing multiple sureties, the Court has provided a more humane interpretation of the law, in line with the constitutional guarantees of personal liberty.
This judgement is a reminder to legal professionals and courts alike that the enforcement of justice must consider the realities faced by those entangled in the legal system. The principles laid down in this case will serve as a guiding framework for future cases involving similar issues, ensuring that the right to bail is not rendered illusory by impractical conditions.
Comments