SUPREME COURT UNDERSTANDS THE DIFFICULTY OF OBTAINING SURETIES FOR SEVERAL FIRs PENDING IN DIFFERENT STATES IN A CRIMINAL MATTER

A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan passed a judgement dated 22.08.2024 in the matter of Girish Gandhi v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 149 of 2024 wherein the Hon’ble Bench held that an accused cannot be compelled to provide separate sureties in multiple FIRs filed against him and which are pending in different parts of the country.

Facts

The Petitioner was operating a company under the name and style of White Blue Retail Pvt. Ltd. (Company) and entered into various Franchisee Agreements with people for opening grocery shops. The Company took franchisee amounts and security deposits from people across the country. Moreover, the Company was obliged to provide rent, commission, dividend etc. to the persons investing in its grocery stores.

However, the Petitioner’s Company failed to fulfill any of its financial obligations and a total of 13 FIRs were registered majorly under Sections 406 (Punishment for criminal breach of trust), 420 (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) and 506 (Punishment for criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal code 1860 (IPC) against the Petitioner in various parts of the country including Kerala, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Haryana and Punjab. Bail orders were given to the Petitioner in all of the cases but he was able to furnish personal bail bond and one surety in respect of the FIR no. 0030 of 2021 registered at P.S. Sadar, Gurugram and also fulfilled the conditions of Bail in one FIR in Kerala.

The main contention by the Petitioner was that he was the only breadwinner in his family and his wife was physically handicapped and worked as a teacher in a private school and barely earned sufficient money. Therefore, the Petitioner is unable to furnish separate surety and bail bonds in respect of each different FIR. The Petitioner sought that the one surety and bail bond furnished in the FIR no. 0030 of 2021 should be treated as sufficient in respect of all other pending cases across the country.

Thus, a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India (Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part) was filed by the Petitioner- Girish Gandhi seeking direction from the Court to the effect that the sureties and personal bonds submitted by the Petitioner in one particular F.I.R shall be termed as valid for all other pending criminal cases against the Petitioner and he shall be granted bail on other cases.

The argument raised by the States which were impleaded as Respondent No. 1-6 in the present Petition was that for each criminal case, a separate surety is required. Furthermore, furnishing only one surety is not enough for all the cases because a surety cannot be compelled to pay more against the amount furnished in the bond.

Issue

Whether the personal bond and one set of surety already furnished by the Petitioner could be considered valid for other bail orders across different states?

Decision by the Apex Court

Although the Petitioner was granted bail orders in all the matters but he was still in custody as the Petitioner was unable to provide the necessary sureties in each of the listed FIRs.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized on the importance of sureties in order to ensure presence of the accused in a criminal trial. The Apex Court held that it was crucial to furnish the sureties and bonds in order to get the bail even though the bail orders were passed in favour of the Petitioner and were not challenged by the Prosecution.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that the Petitioner has furnished sureties and bail bond in the state of Kerala and Haryana but he failed to furnish the necessary bonds in rest of the 11 FIRs.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court relied on the judgement of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky v. The State of Uttar Pradesh SLP (Criminal) Nos. 8914-8915 of 2018 wherein the Apex Court held that-

“Considering the submissions, the impugned order is modified to the extent that the Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) and the same bond shall hold good for all 31 cases. There shall be two sureties who shall execute the bond for Rs. 30,000/- which bond shall hold good for all the 31 cases. It is clarified that the personal bond so executed by the Petitioner and the bond so executed by the two sureties shall hold good for all the 31 cases.

With these observations, the Special Leave Petitions are disposed of.

Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.”

The Hon’ble Bench also relied on the judgement of Moti Ram and Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1978) 4 SCC 47 wherein the Apex Court stated that it will be irrelevant to ask an accused to provide a different surety from every state, knowing the fact that it is difficult to get someone to attach their assets and to become a surety in different parts of the country. Thus, based on the judgements stated above, the Hon’ble Bench relieved the Petitioner to furnish separate sureties from each State.

Consequently, the Hon’ble Bench held that for the States of Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Punjab and Uttarakhand, the Petitioner must furnish personal bond for Rs. 50,000/- for each state and furnish two sureties with a bond of Rs. 30,000/- each and this shall be satisfactory for all the FIRs in that respective State.

Conclusion

The Apex Court recognised the difficulties faced by accused persons in furnishing multiple separate sureties in different parts of the country. They also observed that there is a social stigma that an accused faces when a criminal case is lodged against them. Therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the Petition filed by the Petitioner in terms with the directions given by the Bench in respect of personal bond and sureties.

 

ARJAV JAIN

ASSOCIATE

THE INDIAN LAWYER & ALLIED SERVICES