Granting bail but imposing excessive conditions on an individual is like taking away with the left hand what was given by the right, the Supreme Court observed on Thursday while stating that “excessive bail is no bail”
The bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan was hearing a petition filed by a man who had 13 cases filed against him for various offences including cheating.
In his plea, the petitioner has argued that he was granted bail in all 13 cases but was able to fulfil the bail conditions of only two of them and he was not able to furnish separate sureties for the rest of them.
“The situation today is, in spite of obtaining bail in 13 cases, the petitioner has not been able to furnish sureties. 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,” the bench said.
The top court also referred to the petitioner’s “genuine difficulty” in getting multiple sureties for each bail. A surety, the bench noted, would usually be a relative or friend but in a criminal proceeding, this circle of people would be narrow depending on the nature of the crime as a person would hesitate to tell relatives and friends about such cases to protect their reputation.
“These are hard realities of life in our country and as a court of law we cannot shut our eyes to them. A solution, however, has to be found strictly within the framework of the law,” it said.
However the court said it was faced with the situation where there was a need to balance the requirement of furnishing the sureties with his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
In its order, the court observed that the petitioner was able to secure a surety for a case filed in Haryana but was unable to do so for another that was registered in Rajasthan
“Keeping the principles discussed hereinabove, we direct 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,” the bench said, adding that the same set of sureties is permitted to stand as surety in all the states.
