New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday said 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, and from time immemorial, the principle has been that the excessive bail is no bail.
A bench comprising Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan allowed a plea by a man, who is facing over a dozen FIRs, to use sureties given in one case in all other cases against him. The bench said the Oxford Dictionary defines ‘surety’ as “a person who takes responsibility for another’s obligation” and the advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd edition 2005 defines ‘surety’ to mean “the bail that undertakes for another man in a criminal case.”
Justice Viswanathan, who authored the judgment on behalf of the bench, said whether it is to get individuals to stand as a guarantor for a loan transaction or as a surety in a criminal proceeding, the choice for a person is very limited.
He said that it will very often be a close relative or a longtime friend, and in a criminal proceeding, the circle may get even more narrowed as the normal tendency is to not disclose the said criminal proceeding to relatives and friends, to protect one’s reputation. Justice Viswanathan stressed that these are hard realities of life in our country and as a court of law we cannot shut our eyes to them and a solution, however, has to be found strictly within the framework of the law.
“From time immemorial, the principle has been that the excessive bail is no 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. As to what is excessive will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case”, said Justice Viswanathan.
He said, in the present case, the petitioner is experiencing genuine difficulty in finding multiple sureties and 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," said Justice Vishwanathan.
He said that an order which would protect the person’s fundamental right under Article 21 and at the same time guarantee the presence, would be reasonable and proportionate. “As to what such an order should be, will again depend on the facts and circumstances of each case”, he added.
The apex court made these important observations while allowing a plea by one by Girish Gandhi who faced several cases in multiple states, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Kerala, in connection with cheating and other offences. The petitioner contended that the sureties already furnished by him in two cases should be allowed to be used in all the other 11 cases and pointed out that though he has been granted bail, he was still in custody due to failure to furnish sureties.
“The same set of sureties is permitted to stand as surety in all the states. We feel that this direction will meet the ends of justice and will be proportionate and reasonable”, said Justice Viswanathan.
Read More
