The Supreme Court has provided relief to the petitioner in the case, Girish Gandhi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., involved the petitioner, Girish Gandhi, who sought the Court’s intervention to allow a single set of personal bonds and sureties to be applicable across eleven different bail orders issued by various courts.
Background of the Case
Girish Gandhi was embroiled in multiple legal battles, with 13 FIRs registered against him in states like Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, and Kerala. he has been accused of violating Sections 406, 420, and 506 of the IPC. The cases revolved around inability to achieve financial fulfillment by a company named White Blue Retail Pvt. Ltd.
Despite securing bail in these cases, Gandhi found himself unable to meet the stringent and repetitive conditions imposed by different courts, which required him to furnish separate sureties for each case. This situation effectively nullified his bail orders, as he struggled to provide multiple sureties across different states.
The Supreme Court’s Ruling:
Recognizing the undue burden placed on the petitioner, the Supreme Court addressed the core issue of whether Gandhi could be allowed to treat the personal bond and sureties already furnished in one case as applicable to the others.
The Court, in its judgment, emphasized that "excessive bail is no bail" and acknowledged the petitioner’s genuine difficulty in finding multiple sureties. It was noted that the onerous conditions imposed by various courts had effectively stripped the petitioner of the liberty granted to him through bail.
The judgment quoted Justice Krishna Iyer’s memorable words in the Moti Ram case, highlighting the inherent unfairness of demanding sureties from specific districts or regions, which could disadvantage individuals who do not have local connections.
The Court, therefore, directed that for the FIRs pending in Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Punjab, and Uttarakhand, the petitioner could furnish a personal bond for ₹50,000 and two sureties of ₹30,000 each, which would "hold good for all FIRs in the concerned State." The same set of sureties was permitted to stand as surety in all the states.
Conclusion:
In a landmark decision that upholds the principles of justice and fairness, the Supreme Court relieved Girish Gandhi from the repetitive and burdensome requirement of furnishing multiple sureties. The judgment recognized the need to balance the legal requirements with the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, ensuring that the conditions of bail do not become an impediment to the liberty they are meant to protect.
This ruling not only provided immediate relief to Gandhi but also set a significant precedent for similar cases in the future, where individuals may find themselves entangled in multiple bail orders with prohibitive conditions.
TAGS: Supreme Court bail conditions sureties FIR Girish Gandhi multiple bail orders White Blue Retail Pvt. Ltd. Sections 406 420 506 IPC Justice Krishna Iyer Article 21 Constitution of India
