Supreme Court Warns Against Imposing Excessive Bail Conditions; ‘Excessive Bail is No Bail’

The Supreme Court of India highlighted the issue of imposing excessive bail conditions on Thursday, equating it to nullifying the very essence of granting bail. The court emphasized that “excessive bail is no bail,” as it delivered a ruling in a petition filed by an individual facing multiple criminal charges.

The case was heard by a bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan. The petitioner, who had 13 cases lodged against him for various offenses, including cheating, had been granted bail in all the cases. However, he faced a dilemma: he was able to meet the bail conditions in only two of the cases, as he could not provide separate sureties for the remaining ones.

“The situation today is that, 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 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 remarked, stressing the contradiction in such judicial practices.

The Supreme Court acknowledged the “genuine difficulty” faced by the petitioner in securing multiple sureties. The bench pointed out that a surety is typically a relative or friend of the accused, but the nature of criminal proceedings often makes it challenging to find people willing to stand as sureties. The stigma associated with criminal cases can deter individuals from involving their relatives or friends, who might hesitate to be associated with the accused due to reputational concerns.

“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,” the court noted, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach.

The court found itself in a delicate situation, needing to balance the legal requirement of furnishing sureties with the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.

Court’s ruling

In its ruling, the court acknowledged the petitioner’s predicament, noting that while he had managed to secure a surety for a case in Haryana, he was unable to do so for another case registered in Rajasthan. The bench, therefore, sought to alleviate the burden on the petitioner by simplifying the surety requirements across the multiple cases.

“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 ₹50,000 and furnish two sureties who shall execute the bond for ₹30,000 each, which shall hold good for all FIRs in the concerned state,” the court ordered. The bench further clarified that the same set of sureties would be permitted to stand as sureties in all the states where the cases are pending.