Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Girish Gandhi, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking a direction that the personal bonds and sureties executed by him in connection with FIR No. 0030 of 2021 registered at P.S. Sadar, Gurugram, Haryana, shall hold good for eleven other bail orders passed in his favour from courts of different states. The petitioner was involved in 13 FIRs registered in various states (Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, Kerala) under Sections 406, 420, and 506 IPC, arising from allegations that the company he was associated with, White Blue Retail Pvt. Ltd., failed to fulfill promises made under franchisee agreements. He had been granted bail in all 13 cases, but had only furnished sureties in two cases (FIR No. 30/2021 at Gurugram and FIR No. 53/2020 at Pinarayi, Kerala). The petitioner claimed he was the main breadwinner, his wife was physically handicapped, and he had an aged mother to care for, and that he was unable to furnish separate sureties for the remaining 11 cases due to financial hardship. The states of Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, and the Jail Superintendent opposed the prayer, arguing that separate sureties are required for each crime number and that a common surety cannot be made liable for amounts in excess of the bond furnished. The Supreme Court considered the provisions of Section 441 CrPC regarding bonds and sureties, and noted that the purpose of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused, not to impose financial burdens that render bail illusory. The Court held that where multiple bail orders exist and the accused is unable to furnish separate sureties, the court can, in the interests of justice, direct that the personal bond and sureties furnished in one case shall hold good for all other cases, subject to the condition that the accused appears before the respective courts as required. The Court invoked its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC and Article 142 to prevent injustice. It directed that the personal bond and sureties furnished in FIR No. 30/2021 at Gurugram shall hold good for the other 11 bail orders, provided the petitioner furnishes an undertaking to appear before the concerned courts and that the sureties are not liable for amounts beyond their bond. The Court also clarified that this order does not apply to two additional FIRs mentioned by the petitioner, which are not part of the present proceedings. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Bail - Consolidation of Sureties - Section 441, 482 CrPC, Article 142, 32 Constitution - Petitioner granted bail in 13 FIRs but unable to furnish separate sureties due to financial hardship - Court held that where multiple bail orders exist and accused is unable to furnish separate sureties, the court can direct that personal bond and sureties furnished in one case shall hold good for all other cases, subject to conditions - Held that such direction is necessary to prevent injustice and ensure that bail is not rendered illusory (Paras 17-28). B) Criminal Procedure - Inherent Powers - Section 482 CrPC, Article 142 - Court can pass orders to secure the ends of justice - Where accused is unable to furnish sureties in multiple cases, court can consolidate sureties to avoid hardship - Held that the power under Section 482 CrPC and Article 142 can be invoked to direct that sureties furnished in one case shall enure to the benefit of other cases (Paras 25-28). C) Criminal Procedure - Bail - Conditions - Section 441 CrPC - Surety bond is conditioned on attendance of accused - If accused fails to appear, surety is liable only for the amount of bond in that case - Consolidation does not increase liability of surety beyond the amount undertaken - Held that each surety remains liable only for the amount of bond in the case for which it was furnished (Paras 18, 27).
Issue of Consideration
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 also?
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the petition and directed that the personal bond and sureties furnished by the petitioner in FIR No. 30 of 2021 registered at P.S. Sadar, Gurugram, Haryana, shall hold good for the other eleven bail orders mentioned in the chart, subject to the condition that the petitioner furnishes an undertaking to appear before the concerned courts as and when required. The Court clarified that the sureties shall not be liable for any amount beyond the bond they have furnished. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Law Points
- Bail
- Surety
- Consolidation of sureties
- Section 441 CrPC
- Section 482 CrPC
- Article 142
- Article 32
- Inherent powers
- Financial hardship
- Multiple FIRs
