By using this site, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Accept
ApniLawApniLawApniLaw
  • Home
  • Law Forum
  • Find Lawyers
  • Legal Services
  • Legal News
  • Legal Jobs
  • Legal Articles
    • Documentation
    • Marriage and Divorce
    • Land Dispute & Will
    • Civil
    • Criminal
    • Supreme Court
    • High Court
  • Bare Acts
    • BNSS
    • BNS
    • BSA
    • CrPC
    • DPDP
    • Hindu Marriage Act
    • IPC
    • POCSO
Reading: Supreme Court Rules On Balancing Surety Requirements with Personal Liberty In Multiple Bail Cases
Share
Notification Show More
Font ResizerAa
ApniLawApniLaw
Font ResizerAa
  • Supreme Court
  • High Court
  • Acts
  • Documentation
  • BNSS
  • Home
  • Law Forum
  • Find Lawyers
  • Legal Services
  • Legal News
  • Legal Jobs
  • Legal Articles
    • Documentation
    • Marriage and Divorce
    • Land Dispute & Will
    • Civil
    • Criminal
    • Supreme Court
    • High Court
  • Bare Acts
    • BNSS
    • BNS
    • BSA
    • CrPC
    • DPDP
    • Hindu Marriage Act
    • IPC
    • POCSO
Have an existing account? Sign In
Follow US
  • Advertise
© 2022 Foxiz News Network. Ruby Design Company. All Rights Reserved.
ApniLaw > Blog > News > Supreme Court Rules On Balancing Surety Requirements with Personal Liberty In Multiple Bail Cases
News

Supreme Court Rules On Balancing Surety Requirements with Personal Liberty In Multiple Bail Cases

Amna Kabeer
Last updated: December 15, 2024 1:17 pm
Amna Kabeer
11 months ago
Share
Supreme Court Rules On Balancing Surety Requirements with Personal Liberty In Multiple Bail Cases
Supreme Court Rules On Balancing Surety Requirements with Personal Liberty In Multiple Bail Cases
SHARE

In a significant ruling on August 22, the Supreme Court of India emphasised the need to balance requirement of sureties. It should be balanced with the constitutional right to personal liberty. When an accused person is granted bail in multiple cases but struggles to find separate sureties for each. This decision came during the hearing of a writ petition filed by Girish Gandhi. He had been granted bail in 13 different cases across various states. But, had continued to be incarcerated due to his inability to secure multiple sureties.

The bench, comprised Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Vishwanathan. They highlighted that sureties are crucial for ensuring the presence of the accused on bail. Although, imposing excessive surety conditions may violate the accused’s fundamental rights. The rights are mentioned under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court noted that requiring separate sureties for each case could amount to imposing “excessive bail conditions,”. This contradicts the very purpose of granting bail.

The petitioner had sought relief under Article 32 of the Constitution, requesting that the personal bonds and sureties he provided in one case be applicable to other cases as well. The respondent states, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Punjab, and Uttarakhand, argued that separate sureties are required for each FIR, and a surety cannot be held liable for amounts exceeding the bond they furnished.

During trial

Rejecting the respondents’ arguments, the Supreme Court reiterated the principle that “excessive bail is no bail.” The Court stated, “To grant bail and thereafter impose excessive and onerous conditions is to take away with the left hand what is given with the right.” The Court emphasised that what constitutes “excessive” depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.

The bench also referred to the definitions of “surety” in the Oxford Dictionary and P. Ramanatha Aiyar’s Advanced Law Lexicon, underscoring the practical difficulties faced by individuals in finding sureties, particularly in criminal cases. The Court acknowledged the reality that an accused may be reluctant to disclose their legal troubles to relatives and friends, further narrowing the pool of potential sureties.

In light of these considerations, the Court ruled that a solution must be found within the legal framework that upholds both the accused’s fundamental rights and the need to ensure their presence at trial. The Court ordered that for the pending FIRs in Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Punjab, and Uttarakhand, the petitioner will furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and provide two sureties, each executing a bond of Rs. 30,000. This arrangement will apply to all FIRs within the respective states.

The Supreme Court further allowed the same set of sureties to stand for all cases across these states, stating, “We believe this direction will meet the ends of justice and will be proportionate and reasonable.”

You Might Also Like

Justice Hema Committee Report On Women In Malayalam Film Industry Released, Calls For New Legislation And Independent Tribunal

Supreme Court Issues Notice On PIL For Online Access To Digitised Judicial Records

Freezing Bank Account Under Section 102 CrPC During Investigation Into Offences Under Prevention of Corruption Act Legally Valid: Kerala HC

Civil Court Decree Necessary for Name Change in Board Certificates: Allahabad High Court

Domestic Violence Case Can Be Filed By Mother-in-Laws If Harassed By Their Daughter-in-Law: Allahabad HC

Share This Article
Facebook Email Print
Previous Article Supreme Court Expresses Concern Over 'Inhuman Working Hours' Of Resident Doctors During RG Kar Hospital Case Hearing Supreme Court Expresses Concern Over ‘Inhuman Working Hours’ Of Resident Doctors During RG Kar Hospital Case Hearing
Next Article Supreme Court of India Supreme Court Postpones Hearing On Savukku Shankar’s Plea Against 16 FIRs, Tamil Nadu To Submit Additional Documents
Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Follow US

Find US on Social Medias
FacebookLike
XFollow
InstagramFollow
YoutubeSubscribe

Weekly Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter to get our newest articles instantly!
Popular News
Justice Hima Kohli Advocates for Judicial Collaboration Between India & USA to Drive Economic Development
NewsSupreme Court

Justice Hima Kohli Advocates for Judicial Collaboration Between India & USA to Drive Economic Development

Apni Law
By Apni Law
1 year ago
Re-Testing Of Drugs in NDPS Cases Allowed Only in Rare Situations: Rajasthan HC
Supreme Court Grants Bail To Ashutosh Garg In ₹1,032 Crore GST Fraud Case
Bombay High Court Ruling: Association With Dawood Ibrahim Not Punishable Under UAPA
Co-accused Cannot be Convicted Based On Suspicion Or Assumption Without Proof: Telangana HC On NDPS Act
- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -
Ad imageAd image

Your one-stop destination for legal news, articles, queries, and a directory of lawyers in India – all under one roof at ApniLaw.

Stay Updated

  • BNSS
  • News
  • Documentation
  • Acts
  • Supreme Court
  • High Court

Information

  • ApniLaw Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Service

Advertise

  • Advertise with us
  • Newsletters
  • Deal

Find Us on Socials

ApniLawApniLaw
Follow US
© ApniLaw 2025. All Rights Reserved.
bg-n
Join Us!
Subscribe to our newsletter and never miss our latest news, podcasts etc..
Zero spam, Unsubscribe at any time.

More Interesting News

Section 149 – Code of Civil Procedure – Power To Make Up Deficiency Of Court-Fees.

Section 148A – Code of Civil Procedure – Right To Lodge A Caveat.

login
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Username or Email Address
Password

Lost your password?