Proportionate bail conditions permit a common bond and sureties where repeated local sureties would make release impracticable.

Bail conditions must be reasonable, proportionate, and practically capable of compliance; where repeated sureties or a local surety requirement make release illusory, the court may allow a common personal bond and surety arrangement to secure attendance. The text states that a single set of bond and sureties may, on appropriate facts, be directed to operate across multiple bail matters arising from different FIRs within the same State, while matters outside that scope remain unaffected. It further notes that insisting on separate sureties for each FIR can impose an excessive burden and undermine personal liberty, so such conditions may be relaxed when they are impracticable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the personal bond and sureties furnished in one bail matter could be directed to hold good for multiple other bail orders arising out of different FIRs within the same State. (ii) Whether the requirement of local surety and multiple separate sureties for each FIR was liable to be relaxed in the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether the personal bond and sureties furnished in one bail matter could be directed to hold good for multiple other bail orders arising out of different FIRs within the same State.

Analysis: The petitioner had already been enlarged on bail in the relevant cases, but was unable to secure repeated sureties for each FIR. The Court balanced the object of securing the accused's appearance with the practical difficulty of furnishing multiple sureties, and held that bail conditions must remain reasonable and proportionate. It relied on the settled principle that an impossible condition defeats the grant of bail, and accepted that a single set of personal bond and sureties could, on the facts, operate for all FIRs within the same State. Separate treatment was retained only for matters outside the scope of the charted cases and for cases where no such direction was warranted.

Conclusion: Yes. The personal bond and sureties furnished in one identified case were directed to enure for the other bail orders in the same State, as specified in the judgment.

Issue (ii): Whether the requirement of local surety and multiple separate sureties for each FIR was liable to be relaxed in the facts of the case.

Analysis: The Court noted that insistence on local surety can, in appropriate cases, render bail illusory and operate as an excessive condition. Applying the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty and the need for a fair, workable bail regime, the Court treated the local surety requirement as an undue burden in the facts before it. The direction for one set of sureties to cover the relevant cases was held sufficient to secure attendance without imposing an onerous and impracticable condition.

Conclusion: Yes. The local surety requirement was relaxed and replaced by a common, proportionate surety arrangement for the covered cases.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, and the bail conditions were modified so that one personal bond and one set of sureties could operate across the specified cases within each concerned State.

Ratio Decidendi: Bail conditions must be reasonable, proportionate, and capable of compliance; where repeated sureties or local surety requirements make release illusory, the court may permit a common bond and sureties to secure attendance without undermining personal liberty.

---