9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (8) TMI 1140 - SC - Indian LawsSeeking an appropriate Writ or Direction to the effect that the personal bonds and sureties executed by the petitioner registered at P.S. Sadar, District Gurugram, shall hold good for eleven other bail orders passed in his favour from the Courts of different States - Whether the petitioner 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? HELD THAT - 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. In the present case, 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. 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. It is directed that for the FIRs pending in each of the States of Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Punjab and Uttarakhand, in each State, the petitioner will furnish his personal bond for Rs. 50,000/- and furnish two sureties who shall execute the bond for Rs. 30,000/- each which shall hold good for all FIRs in the concerned State, for cases mentioned in the chart set out hereinabove. The same set of sureties is permitted to stand as surety in all the States. This direction will meet the ends of justice and will be proportionate and reasonable. Petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief of treating the personal bond and one set of sureties already furnished as holding good for the other bail orders. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Entitlement to Relief of Treating Personal Bond and One Set of Sureties for Multiple Bail Orders Brief Facts: The petitioner, associated with White Blue Retail Pvt. Ltd., faces allegations of failing to fulfill commitments made under various franchise agreements. This resulted in 13 FIRs being registered against him under Sections 406, 420, and 506 of the IPC across multiple states. The petitioner has been granted bail in all these cases but has been unable to furnish separate sureties for each. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argues that he has already furnished personal bail bonds and sureties in connection with FIR No. 0030 of 2021 (P.S. Sadar, Gurugram) and FIR No. 53 of 2020 (P.S. Pinarayi, Kerala). He contends that he is the main breadwinner, with a physically handicapped wife and an aged mother to support. He is unable to furnish separate sureties for the remaining 11 bail orders and seeks to have the sureties already furnished apply to all other cases. Counter-Affidavits by States: - Uttar Pradesh: Separate sureties are required for each crime number, and a surety cannot be made liable beyond the amount of the bond furnished. - Rajasthan: Similar contention as Uttar Pradesh, emphasizing the need for separate sureties. - Uttarakhand and Jail Superintendent Bhondsi Jail, Gurugram: Also oppose the petitioner's prayer for consolidation of sureties. Court's Analysis and Reasoning: The court acknowledged the petitioner's genuine difficulty in finding multiple sureties and emphasized the principle that "excessive bail is no bail." The court referred to previous judgments, including Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, which highlighted the need to avoid imposing conditions impossible to comply with. Key Legal Provisions: - Section 441 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: Deals with bonds and sureties, requiring a bond for the sum of money deemed sufficient by the police officer or court. - Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: Outlines the procedure when a bond has been forfeited. Court's Decision: The court directed that for the FIRs pending in each of the States of Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Punjab, and Uttarakhand, the petitioner will furnish his personal bond for Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties who shall execute the bond for Rs. 30,000/- each, which shall hold good for all FIRs in the concerned State. This direction will meet the ends of justice and be proportionate and reasonable. Specific Directions: - Uttar Pradesh: The personal bond for Rs. 50,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs. 30,000/- shall be executed in regard to FIR No. 685/2020 (P.S. Vrindavan, Mathura). This will apply to all other FIRs in Uttar Pradesh listed in the chart. - Punjab: The direction shall hold good for FIR No. 297/2020 (P.S. Kotwali, Patiala). - Rajasthan: The direction shall hold good for FIR No. 190/2020 (P.S. Savina, Udaipur) and FIR No. 190/2020 (P.S. Kotgate, Bikaner). The personal bond and sureties shall be executed in regard to FIR No. 190/2020 (P.S. Savina, Udaipur). - Uttarakhand: The direction shall hold good for FIR No. 146/2020 (P.S. Jwalapur, Haridwar). The court also relieved the petitioner from the direction to produce a local surety, recognizing the practical difficulties in securing such sureties. Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed in terms of the directions given, ensuring that the petitioner could benefit from the sureties already furnished for all the other FIRs in the respective states. The court emphasized the need to balance the requirement of furnishing sureties with the petitioner's fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
|
