GIRISH GANDHI   [PETITIONER (s)]  Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.              [RESPONDENT(s)]

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 149 OF 2024

(2JB, B.R. GAVAI and K. V. VISWANATHAN JJ., delivered by K.V. Viswanathan, J.)

The Supreme Court ruled on August 22 that when an accused facing multiple cases is granted bail but struggles to find multiple sureties, the court must balance this requirement with the individual’s right to personal liberty under Article 21. The petitioner, Girish Gandhi, who secured bail in 13 cases across different states, remained incarcerated due to difficulty in providing multiple sureties. The Court emphasized that excessive bail conditions could undermine the right to bail and ordered that the petitioner’s sureties in one state should suffice for all cases in that state, ensuring the protection of his fundamental rights.

The petitioner, Girish Gandhi, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking a directive that the personal bonds and sureties he provided for an FIR in Gurugram be accepted for 11 other bail orders issued by courts in different states. The key issue for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to have the personal bond and a single set of sureties used for one case be recognized for all other bail orders across various jurisdictions.

The petitioner is involved in multiple legal cases related to White Blue Retail Pvt. Ltd., where the company allegedly failed to fulfill promises made in franchise agreements, leading to 13 FIRs against the petitioner under various sections of the IPC. The petitioner, who claims to be merely an Accounts In-charge, seeks to consolidate the sureties provided for bail in two cases to cover the remaining 11 cases due to financial difficulties. The states of Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Uttarakhand, along with the Jail Superintendent, oppose this request, arguing that separate sureties are required for each FIR.

The petitioner, Girish Gandhi, who has been granted bail in 13 cases across six states, sought a directive to allow personal bonds and sureties furnished for an FIR in Gurugram to apply to all other bail orders. Despite being granted bail, the petitioner remains in custody due to difficulties in furnishing sureties for multiple cases. The court recognized that requiring multiple sureties could impose excessive and onerous conditions, which would conflict with the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Balancing the need for sureties with the petitioner’s rights, the court ruled that a single set of sureties should suffice for all cases within each state. Specifically, the petitioner must furnish a personal bond of ₹50,000 and two sureties of ₹30,000 each, applicable across the relevant FIRs in Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, and Uttarakhand.

The court emphasized that excessive bail conditions undermine the purpose of bail and directed that the same set of sureties should be valid in all states where the petitioner faces charges. The petition was allowed with the court’s order superseding previous bail conditions, except for a few cases not addressed in this ruling.