Multiple bail orders requiring separate sureties across different states violates Article 21 when accused faces genuine difficulty arranging them

The SC held that requiring separate sureties for multiple bail orders across different states violates Article 21 when the accused faces genuine difficulty in arranging multiple sureties. The court balanced the need for ensuring accused's presence with fundamental rights protection. It directed that for FIRs in Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Punjab and Uttarakhand, petitioner shall furnish personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of Rs. 30,000 each per state, with same sureties permitted across all states for all FIRs in each respective state. The petition was allowed as the direction was deemed proportionate and reasonable.

---

---

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.

---