ONEROUS DEMAND FOR BAIL

 

 

 

 

I N THE Judgment of the case- Girish Gandhi v.The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, delivered on August 22, 2024, Justice Bhushan R. Gavai and Justice K.V.Viswanathan, at the Supreme Court, have dealt with problems arising from onerous conditions being imposed by trial courts and High Courts while granting bail, and quite tersely stated that bail attached with onerous conditions is no bail. This writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking an appropriate writ/direction to the effect that the personal bonds and sureties executed by the petitioner in connection with FIR of January 21, 2021 registered at the Police Station Sadar, District Gurugram, shall hold good for 11 other bail orders passed in his favour from the Courts of different States.

 

The question for consideration, which arose before the Court was as to whether the petitioner was entitled to the relief of treating the personal bond and one set of sureties already furnished as holding good for the other bail orders also? Very broadly, the prosecution case is that the company with which the petitioner was concerned, namely, White Blue Retail Pvt. Ltd. allowed the use of its trade name through franchisee agreement for opening of Grocery Shops. The Company also took the franchisee amounts and refundable security. The gist of the allegation is that the Company, which was to give space to open store on rent in some cases and made other promises, failed to deliver those. Totally, 13 FIRs came to be registered against the petitioner under various sections-406, 420 and 506 of IPC. The petitioner had submitted that he had already furnished personal bail bonds with one surety of Rs 50,000/- in the Trial Court in respect of FIR No.00302021 of 2021 registered at the Police Station Sadar, Gurugram. The petitioner also submitted that he had fulfilled conditions of bail with respect to the order passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery, Kerala in FIR No. 53/2020 registered at the Police Station, Pinarayi, Kerala. The petitioner’s contention has been that that he was the main bread earner of the family.

 

He has claimed that he was merely working in the Company as In-charge (Accounts), though this was disputed by the prosecution. The claim of some of the complainants in some of the FIRs is that he was the Director of the Company. The Court was not interested in resolving that issue in this case. The petitioner had further contended that his wife was physically handicapped and was a teacher in a private school and barely earns enough to eke out a living for herself and their son. Petitioner has also stated on oath that he has an aged mother to take care of. The main plea of the petitioner was that he was not in a position to furnish separate sureties, as directed in the remaining 11 bail orders. In view of that he sought for treating the sureties already furnished in two cases in such a manner as to enure to the benefit of all the other 11 cases. On April 8, 2024, the Supreme Court passed the order, issuing notice, in response to the petitioner’s prayer for other 11 bail orders.

 

A perusal of the chart revealed that while in the State of Uttar Pradesh there are 6 FIRs with other two in Haryana, one in Punjab, two in Rajasthan and one in Uttarakhand and also one FIR in Kerala. According to the SC, it is undisputed that that in the 13 matters the petitioners stand enlarged on bail. The bail orders have become final and have not been challenged by the prosecution. In two of cases at Sadar in Gurugram in Haryana and Pinrayi in Kerala, sureties already stand furnished. Inspite of obtaining bail in 13 cases, the situation today is that the petitioner was unable to furnish sureties. As has been mentioned earlier, the cases against the petitioner are in six States. Insofar as the case in Kerala is concerned, he has already furnished sureties and there is only case in that State. In Haryana, in one case he hasfurnished sureties and in the case hehas been ordered is Fixed DepositReceipt for a sum of Rs one lakh. TheSupreme Court is not inclined to interfere with this order. In remaining States– U.P., Rajasthan, Punjab andUttarakhand, even though in the casesbail has been ordered, the petitioner isstill in custody because he is unable tofurnish sureties.

 

The Oxford Dictionary defines ‘surety’ as “a person who takes responsibility for another‘s obligation. AdvancedLaw Lexicon by P. Ramnatha Aiyar, 3rdEdition 2005 defines ‘surety’ to mean“the bail that undertakes for another manin a criminal case”. After recalling the memorable wordsof Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in the judgment of the case – Motiram and Othersv. State of Madhya Pradesh –(1978)4SCC 47 para 33, the SC proposed torelieve the petitioner from the directionto produce a local surety. Keeping the principles discussed inmind, the SC directed that for the FIRspending in each of the States of UttarPradesh, Rajasthan, Punjab andUttarakhand, in each State, the petitioner will furnish his personal bond forRs 50,000/- and furnish two suretieswho shall execute the bond for Rs30,000/- each, which shall hold good forall FIRs in the concerned State, for thecases mentioned in the chart. The sameset of sureties is permitted to stand assurety in all the States. According to the Court this directionwill meet the ends of justice and will beproportionate and reasonable. The Supreme Court has stated thatthis condition will supersede the condition imposed in the respective bail orders. The petitioner may pursue independent proceedings with regard to fourcases, specifically mentioned by theSupreme Court in this judgment withFIR numbers related to those cases. TheSupreme Court has allowed the writ petition in terms of its directions.