The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its landmark decision in Girish Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors[i], decoded the validity of conditions imposed while granting bail and whether the sureties furnished by the accused can benefit all the cases filed against him.
Facts
Girish Gandhi (‘petitioner’) was implicated in 13 separate first information reports (‘FIRs’) filed across six different states under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), including s. 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust), s. 420 (Cheating), and s. 506 (Criminal Intimidation).
The petitioner was granted bail in all 13 cases, with conditions requiring furnishing personal bonds and sureties. The petitioner had already furnished the required sureties in connection with two FIRs, one in Haryana (FIR No. 30/2021) and another in Kerala (FIR No. 53/2020).
However, the petitioner faced difficulties in fulfilling the surety conditions in the remaining cases, citing financial constraints and the practical difficulty of arranging multiple sureties across different states.
The petitioner’s primary argument was that the personal bonds and sureties already furnished in the two aforementioned FIRs should suffice for all the other bail orders. The petitioner highlighted that he was the sole breadwinner for his family, with a physically handicapped wife, an aged mother, and a son to support, further complicating his ability to meet the surety requirements in each case.
The states involved, including Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Punjab, and Uttarakhand, opposed the petitioner’s plea, arguing that separate sureties were required for each FIR, as each bail bond was tied to a specific criminal case and surety.
Held
The Supreme Court, relying on its decision in the case of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vicky v. The State of Uttar Pradesh[ii], granted partial relief to the petitioner and relieved him from producing local surety in the concerned bail orders.
The Court recognised the practical difficulties faced by the petitioner in furnishing multiple sureties across different states. It acknowledged the potential infringement of his fundamental rights under a. 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court directed that for each state, the petitioner would furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of Rs. 30,000 each. This consolidated surety would apply to all FIRs within the respective state, effectively allowing the same set of sureties to cover multiple bail orders in the concerned state. The Court also waived the condition of providing a local surety in Rajasthan, acknowledging the undue burden it placed on the petitioner.
The Supreme Court observed that a surety is a person who takes on responsibility for someone else’s actions, and finding sureties for criminal cases can be difficult. In this case, the accused was a resident of Haryana, and thus, producing a local surety in the State of Rajasthan would be an arduous task. Reliance was placed on the case of Moti Ram and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh[iii]* and In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail[iv], *wherein it has been decided that if delays in the release of an accused can be attributed to the condition of a local surety, the courts may not insist upon such a condition.
The Supreme Court discussed the principle that excessive bail is no bail, and if onerous conditions are imposed on the bail, then it takes away the freedom granted to the accused. It placed reliance on its own decision in the case of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.[v]*, *which observed that the imposition of impossible conditions on release orders can defeat the very purpose of such orders.
Our Analysis
The Supreme Court has consistently reaffirmed the principle that excessively stringent conditions on bail can undermine its very purpose—ensuring the accused's presence in court while safeguarding their liberty. This was evident in its recent decisions, which highlighted the practical difficulties faced by the accused, a resident of Haryana, who was required to furnish local sureties in other states. Consequently, the Court deemed it reasonable to relax these requirements.
Moreover, the Court introduced a benevolent exception to the general rule that mandates a separate surety for each bail order. Instead of requiring separate bail bonds and sureties for each FIR, the Supreme Court directed that one bail bond and two sureties per state would suffice. This decision not only alleviates the excessively burdensome conditions of bail but also simplifies the process of securing bail across multiple jurisdictions, thus providing significant relief to the accused.
End Notes
[i] 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2142 dated 22.08.2024.
[ii] SLP (Criminal) Nos. 8914-8915 of 2018.
[iii] (1978) 4 SCC 47.
[iv] 2023 SCC OnLine SC 483.
[v] 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825.
Authored by Rosy Gupta, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinions.
More Insights
10-07-2026
7
min read
Faceless Reassessment after S. 147A: What the Supreme Court Did – and Did Not – Decide
The Supreme Court's decision in Tej Pratap Singh does not settle the JAO–FAO controversy. Following Parliament's retrospective insertion of s. 147A, it remands the issue to the High Courts for fresh consideration. Faceless reassessment was never merely about moving tax files from paper to portal; it fundamentally changed the statutory authority responsible for communicating with the taxpayer, examining the record, drafting the order and completing the assessment. The real question now is how far a retrospective legislative clarification can go.
22-06-2026
8
min read
Claim Admission is not Debt Acknowledgement: Supreme Court on RP’s Role & Limitation under the IBC
Can admission of a claim by a Resolution Professional extend limitation under section 18 of the Limitation Act? In Shankar Khandelwal v. Omkara Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court answered this question in the negative, holding that claim admission during CIRP is merely a statutory claim-verification process and not an acknowledgement of debt. The ruling clarifies the RP’s non-adjudicatory role and reinforces important principles governing limitation under the IBC.
2026-04-23
18
min read
Mandatory Pre-Deposit for Appeals in Indirect Tax Laws: A Barrier to Justice?
Mandatory pre-deposit has become a defining feature of indirect tax litigation, balancing revenue protection with access to appellate remedies. While the shift to a fixed statutory framework has improved procedural efficiency, it also raises concerns regarding financial barriers and effective access to justice. This insight examines the legal evolution, judicial interpretation, and practical implications of the regime.