GIRISH GANDHIversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

                  [2024] 8 S.C.R. 561 : 2024 INSC 617

                            Girish Gandhi
                                   v.
                   The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
                   Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 149 of 2024
                                  22 August 2024
               [B.R. Gavai and K. V. Viswanathan,* JJ.]

                             Issue for Consideration
       Multiple cases were filed against the petitioner. Though he was
       granted bail in all of them, he was not able to furnish multiple
       sureties. Is the petitioner entitled to the relief of treating the personal
       bond and one set of sureties already furnished as holding good
       for the other bail orders also.

                                     Headnotes†
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.441 – Bond of accused
       and sureties – Constitution of India – Article 21 – 13 FIRs
       against the petitioner in 6 States – Enlarged on bail with
       conditions in all of them – Unable to find multiple sureties –
       Sureties already furnished in two cases in two States, if
       would enure to the benefit of the other 11 cases:
       Held: Petitioner is experiencing a genuine difficulty in finding
       multiple sureties – Sureties are essential to ensure the presence
       of the accused, released on bail however, in cases where the
       accused enlarged on bail is unable to find sureties in multiple
       cases, there is also a need to balance the requirement of
       furnishing the sureties with his or her fundamental rights u/Article
       21 of the Constitution of India – An order which would protect
       the person’s fundamental right u/Article 21 and at the same time
       guarantee the presence, would be reasonable and proportionate –
       As to what such an order should be, will depend on the facts
       and circumstances of each case – For the FIRs pending in 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 same set of sureties to stand as surety
       in all the States. [Paras 23, 28]

* Author
562                                                              [2024] 8 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Bond and sureties –
       Condition of local surety – In one of the bail order in the
       State of Rajasthan, the petitioner who hails from Haryana
       was directed to provide a local surety – Propriety:
       Held: One of the reasons which delays the release of the accused/
       convict is the insistence upon local surety – In such cases, the
       courts may not impose the condition of local surety – In the present
       case, the petitioner hails from Haryana and to secure a local
       surety will be an arduous task for him – This condition virtually
       rendered the order for bail ineffective – Petitioner relieved from
       the direction to produce a local surety. [Paras 26, 27]
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Bail – Bond and sureties –
       Imposition of excessive and onerous conditions:
       Held: 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 – As to what is excessive will
       depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. [Para 23]
       Words and Phrases – ‘surety’ – Definition & Meaning –
       Discussed. [Para 21]
                                Case Law Cited
       Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.[2022]
       10 SCR 351 : (2022) 10 SCC 51; Hani Nishad @ Mohammad
       Imran @ Vikky v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (SLP (Criminal)
       Nos. 8914-8915 of 2018); In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail
       in SMWP (Criminal) No. 4/2021(2023) SCC OnLine SC 483; Moti
       Ram and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1979] 1 SCR 335 :
       (1978) 4 SCC 47 – referred to.
                         Books and Periodicals Cited
       Oxford Dictionary; Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar,
       3rd Edition 2005 – referred to.

                                   List of Acts
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Constitution of India.
                                List of Keywords
       Personal bond; Surety; Sureties; Bond of accused and sureties;
       Multiple FIRs; Multiple cases; Multiple sureties; Unable to furnish/
       difficulty in finding multiple sureties; Excessive bail; Bail with
       conditions; Local surety; Condition of local surety.
[2024] 8 S.C.R.                                                          563

           Girish Gandhi v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.


                            Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Criminal)
     No. 149 of 2024
     (Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India)
                         Appearances for Parties
     Prem Prakash, Aditya Harsh, Ms. Deepali Nanda, Advs. for the
     Petitioner.
     Ms. Garima Prasad, Sr. A.A.G., Vishnu Shankar Jain, Ghanshyam
     Singh, Dr. Monika Gusain, Ms. Nupur Kumar, Ms. Niharika Tanwar,
     B.S. Rajesh Agrajit, Milind Kumar, Priya Nagar, Siddharth Goswami,
     Ms. Raj Bala, Aakash Sharma, Sudarshan Singh Rawat, Ms. Rachna
     Gandhi, S Sunil, Ms. Saakshi Singh Rawat, Mohit Kaushik, Advs.
     for the Respondents.
                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                Judgment
     K.V. Viswanathan, J.
1.   The present Writ Petition, under Article 32 of the Constitution of India,
     has been filed by the petitioner-Girish Gandhi seeking an appropriate
     Writ or Direction to the effect that the personal bonds and sureties
     executed by the petitioner in connection with FIR No. 0030 of 2021
     dated 21.01.2021 registered at P.S. Sadar, District Gurugram, shall
     hold good for eleven other bail orders passed in his favour from the
     Courts of different States. Details of the bail orders in different FIRs
     have been elaborated hereinbelow.
2.   The question that arises for consideration is, is the petitioner entitled
     to the relief of treating the personal bond and one set of sureties
     already furnished as holding good for the other bail orders also?
     Brief Facts:-
3.   Very broadly, the prosecution case is that the company in which
     the petitioner was concerned with, namely, White Blue Retail Pvt.
     Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Company’) allowed the use
     of its trade name through franchisee agreement for opening of
     Grocery Shops. The Company also took the franchisee amounts
     and refundable security. The substratum of the allegation is that the
564                                                                [2024] 8 S.C.R.

                         Digital Supreme Court Reports


       Company which was to give space to open store on rent in some
       cases; 5% commission on monthly sale in some; 10% margin on
       goods sales in some others; 12% interest as dividend on investment
       in a few and minimum 24% profit in certain agreements, failed in
       its promise.
4.     Totally, 13 FIRs came to be registered against the petitioner under
       various Sections viz., 406, 420 and 506 of IPC. The petitioner has
       been granted the benefit of bail with the conditions in all of them.
       A chart setting out the FIR nos. and the place where the FIR is
       registered and the bail conditions are set out hereinbelow:
                                    List of Bail Orders
       S. No. FIR No.       Place of FIR         Bail Conditions
       1.      190/2020     P.S. Savina,         Personal Bond of Rs. 50,000/-
                            Udaipur,             and two sureties of Rs. 25,000/-
                            Rajasthan            including one local surety.
       2.      1028/2020 P.S. Civil Lines,       Personal Bond and furnishing of two
                         Moradabad, Uttar        sureties each in the like amount to
                         Pradesh                 the satisfaction of Court (amount
                                                 not mentioned).
       3.      685/2020     P.S. Vrindavan,      Personal Bond and furnishing of two
                            Mathura, Uttar       sureties each in the like amount to
                            Pradesh              the satisfaction of Court (amount
                                                 not mentioned).
       4.      190/2020     P.S. Kotgate,      Personal Bond of Rs. 1,00,000/-
                            Bikaner, Rajasthan and two sureties of Rs. 50,000/-
                                               each.
       5.      309/2020     P.S. Siddhartha      Personal Bond of Rs. 75,000/- and
                            Nagar, Siddhartha    two sureties of Rs. 75,000/- each.
                            Nagar, Uttar
                            Pradesh
       6.      146/2020     P.S. Jwalapur,       Personal Bond and furnishing of two
                            Haridwar,            sureties each in the like amount to
                            Uttarakhand          the satisfaction of Court (amount
                                                 not mentioned).
       7.      53/2020      P.S. Pinarayi,       Personal Bond of Rs. 10,000/- and
                            Pinarayi, Kerala     two solvent sureties of Rs. 10,000/-
                                                 each.
       8.      343/2020     P.S. Kotwali,        Personal Bond and furnishing of two
                            Mathura, Uttar       sureties each in the like amount to
                            Pradesh              the satisfaction of Court (amount
                                                 not mentioned).
[2024] 8 S.C.R.                                                             565

            Girish Gandhi v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.



      9.      294/2020   P.S. Sipri Bazar,   Personal Bond and furnishing of two
                         Jhansi, Uttar       sureties each in the like amount to
                         Pradesh             the satisfaction of Court (amount
                                             not mentioned).
      10.     30/2021    P.S. Sadar,         Personal Bail Bonds with sum
                         Gurugram,           of Rs.50,000/- and one surety of
                         Haryana             Rs.50,000/-.
      11.     521/2020   P.S. Sadar,         Fixed Deposit Receipts in the sum
                         Gurugram,           of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
                         Haryana
      12.     297/2020   P.S. Kotwali,       Personal Bond and furnishing of two
                         Patiala, Punjab     sureties each in the like amount to
                                             the satisfaction of Trial Court.
      13.     222/2020   P.S. Tulsipur,      Furnishing a Personal Bond and
                         Balrampur, Uttar    two sureties each in the like amount
                         Pradesh             to the satisfaction of the Court
                                             concerned.

5.   The petitioner submits that he has already furnished personal bail
     bonds with a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and one surety of Rs. 50,000/- in
     the Trial Court in respect of FIR no. 0030 of 2021 registered at P.S.
     Sadar, Gurugram. The petitioner also submits that he has fulfilled the
     conditions of bail with respect to the order passed by the Learned
     Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery, Kerala in FIR No.
     53 of 2020 registered at P.S. Pinarayi, Kerala.
6.   The petitioner’s contention is that he was the main bread earner
     of the family. The Petitioner claims that he was merely working
     in the Company as In-charge (Accounts), though this is disputed
     by the prosecution. The claim of the complainants in some of
     the FIRs is that he was the Director of the Company. We are not
     to resolve that issue here. The petitioner further contends that
     his wife is physically handicapped and is a teacher in a private
     school and barely earns enough to eke out a living for herself
     and their son. Petitioner also avers that he has an aged mother
     to take care of.
7.   The main plea of the petitioner is that he is not in a position to
     furnish separate sureties, as directed in the remaining 11 bail orders.
     In view of that he seeks for treating the sureties already furnished
     in two cases in such a manner as to enure to the benefit of all the
     other eleven cases.
566                                                          [2024] 8 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


8.     When the matter came up on 08.04.2024, this Court made the
       following order:
            “1. Mr. Prem Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner,
            contends that in spite of bail orders being passed in
            11 cases, the petitioner is not able to avail his liberty
            due to his inability to produce the sureties. Learned
            counsel prays for a direction that the personal bonds
            and the sureties that are executed in connection with
            FIR No.0030 of 2021, dated 21.01.2021, registered at
            P.S. Sadar, District Gurugram, should be held good for
            the other bail orders set out in the prayer clause of the
            petition.
            2. Issue notice to the respondents.
            3. Dasti, in addition, is permitted.
            4. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to serve the standing
            counsel for the respondent-States.
            5. List the matter on 15.04.2024 for further consideration.”
9.     To this Writ Petition, the States of Uttar Pradesh, Haryana,
       Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand and Jail Superintendent Bhondsi
       Jail, Gurugram are arrayed as Respondent no. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and
       6 respectively. A perusal of the chart mentioned above would
       reveal that while in the State of Uttar Pradesh there are six FIRs,
       in Haryana there are two FIRs, in Punjab there is one FIR, in
       Rajasthan there are two FIRs and in Uttarakhand there is one
       FIR. There is also one FIR in Kerala where sureties have already
       been furnished.
10. As far as the State of Haryana is concerned, out of the two FIRs
    where bail orders have been obtained, sureties have been furnished
    in FIR No. 30 of 2021 registered at Police Station Sadar, Gurgaon.
11. Counter affidavits have been filed by the respective States. The
    State of Uttar Pradesh has contended that in FIR No. 685 of 2020,
    the charge-sheet has been submitted on 07.07.2022 for the offences
    under Sections 420, 406, 506, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC before the
    Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura, UP. Insofar as FIR No. 343 of
    2020 is concerned, charge-sheet has been filed on 14.07.2022 for
    the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 506 of IPC against the
[2024] 8 S.C.R.                                                       567

           Girish Gandhi v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.


     petitioner before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
     Mathura. According to the State, for each crime number, separate
     surety is required and a particular surety cannot be made liable to
     pay the amount in excess of the amount of bond that the surety has
     furnished. In view of that, according to the State, bond of one surety
     cannot be mixed up with the bond executed or to be executed in
     other cases against different crime numbers. Stating so, the State
     opposes the prayer of the petitioner.
12. Similarly, counter affidavit has been filed by the State of Rajasthan.
    The State points out that apart from the two FIRs mentioned above,
    there is one more FIR No. 230 of 2020 registered at Police Station
    Sadarpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. The State contends that
    separate sureties are required and a common surety cannot be
    made liable to pay the amount in excess of the amount of bond
    that he or she furnishes. The State has also opposed the prayer of
    the petitioner.
13. Equally, the State of Uttarakhand has averred that separate personal
    bond and sureties ought to be furnished insofar as the sole FIR
    pending in the State is concerned. The Superintendent, Bhondsi
    Jail, Gurugram has also filed a counter affidavit opposing the prayer
    of the petitioner.
14. The petitioner has also filed an additional affidavit placing on record
    certain subsequent events pointing out that two more FIRs have
    been registered against him viz., FIR No. 608 of 2022 registered at
    Police Station, Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow, U.P. on 13.09.2022
    under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC and FIR No. 141 of 2023 dated
    21.05.2023 registered at Police Station Tulsipur, District Balrampur
    under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social
    Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The petitioner has also averred
    that insofar as FIR No. 608 of 2022 registered at Police Station
    Vibhuti Khand is concerned, the petitioner had filed Writ Petition
    (Criminal) Diary No.20302 of 2024 in this Court. We noticed that the
    said proceeding is disposed of giving him liberty to approach the
    High Court. We say nothing more insofar as FIR No. 608 of 2022
    is concerned.
15. A prayer is made that the bail granted in FIR No. 222 dated 08.09.2020
    registered at P.S. Tulsipur, District Balrampur, U.P. be allowed to
568                                                         [2024] 8 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


       enure to the benefit of the petitioner in connection with FIR No.
       0141 of 2023 dated 21.5.2023 registered at PS Tulsipur, District
       Balrampur, U.P. We outrightly reject this prayer. The petitioner is at
       liberty to move appropriate proceedings which may be decided in
       accordance with law and uninfluenced by the present order. We are
       in the present matter only concerned as to whether insofar as the
       eleven FIRs are concerned in which bail has already been granted,
       there could be any order for consolidation of sureties and, if so, in
       what manner.
       Contentions:
16. We have heard Mr. Prem Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner
    and the learned senior counsels and counsels appearing for the
    respective States. We have considered the documents on record
    and the arguments advanced by the parties.
       Analysis and Reasoning:
17. It is undisputed that in the 13 matters set out in the chart hereinabove,
    the petitioner stands enlarged on bail. The bail orders have become
    final and have not been challenged by the prosecution. It is also
    undisputed that in two of them FIR no. 0030 of 2021 registered at
    P.S. Sadar, Gurugram and FIR No. 53 of 2020 registered at P.S.
    Pinarayi surety already stands furnished. The situation today is, in
    spite of obtaining bail in 13 cases, the petitioner has not been able
    to furnish sureties. There are two cases where bail has not been
    granted and we have already observed that the present proceedings
    do not concern them.
18. Section 441 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which deals with
    bonds and sureties, reads as under:
            “441. Bond of accused and sureties. – (1)Before any
            person is released on bail or released on his own bond, a
            bond for such sum of money as the police officer or Court,
            as the case may be, thinks sufficient shall be executed by
            such person, and, when he is released on bail, by one or
            more sufficient sureties conditioned that such person shall
            attend at the time and place mentioned in the bond, and
            shall continue so to attend until otherwise directed by the
            police officer or Court, as the case may be.
[2024] 8 S.C.R.                                                             569

           Girish Gandhi v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.


           (2) Where any condition is imposed for the release of
           any person on bail, the bond shall also contain that
           condition.
           (3) If the case so requires, the bond shall also bind the
           person released on bail to appear when called upon at
           the High Court, Court of Session or other Court to answer
           the charge.
           (4) For the purpose of determining whether the sureties
           are fit or sufficient, the Court may accept affidavits in proof
           of the facts contained therein relating to the sufficiency
           or fitness of the sureties, or, if it considers necessary,
           may either hold an inquiry itself or cause an inquiry to
           be made by a Magistrate subordinate to the Court, as to
           such sufficiency or fitness.”
19. Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which deals with
    procedure when bond has been forfeited, reads as under:
           “446. Procedure when bond has been forfeited. – (1)
           Where a bond under this Code is for appearance, or for
           production of property, before a Court and it is proved to
           the satisfaction of that Court or of any Court to which the
           case has subsequently been transferred, that the bond
           has been forfeited,
           or where in respect of any other bond under this Code, it is
           proved to the satisfaction of the Court by which the bond was
           taken, or of any Court to which the case has subsequently
           been transferred, or of the Court of any Magistrate of the
           first class, that the bond has been forfeited,
           the Court shall record the grounds of such proof, and may
           call upon any person bound by such bond to pay the penalty
           thereof or to show cause why it should not be paid.”
20. As set out earlier, the cases against the petitioner span over six States.
    Insofar as the case in Kerala is concerned, he has already furnished
    sureties and there is only one case in that State. Insofar as Haryana
    is concerned, of the two cases, he has furnished sureties in one and
    in the other case what has been ordered is Fixed Deposit Receipt
    (FDR) for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. We do not propose to interfere
570                                                           [2024] 8 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       with this order. The remaining States are Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan,
       Punjab and Uttarakhand. In these States, even though in the cases
       concerned, the bail has been ordered, the petitioner is still in custody
       because he is unable to furnish sureties.
21. The Oxford Dictionary defines ‘surety’ as “a person who takes
    responsibility for another’s obligation”. Advanced Law Lexicon by P.
    Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Edition 2005 defines ‘surety’ to mean “the bail
    that undertakes for another man in a criminal case.”
22. Whether it is to get individuals, to stand as a guarantor for a loan
    transaction or as a Surety in a criminal proceeding, the choice for
    a person is very limited. It will very often be a close relative or a
    longtime friend. In a criminal proceeding, the circle may get even
    more narrowed as the normal tendency is to not disclose about the
    said criminal proceeding to relatives and friends, to protect one’s
    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.
23. 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. As to what is excessive will depend on the facts and
    circumstances of each case. In the present case, the petitioner is
    experiencing a genuine difficulty in finding multiple sureties. Sureties
    are essential to ensure the presence of the accused, released on bail.
    At the same time, where the court is faced with the situation where
    the accused enlarged on bail is unable to find sureties, as ordered,
    in multiple cases, there is also a need to balance the requirement
    of furnishing the sureties with his or her fundamental rights under
    Article 21 of the Constitution of India. An order which would protect
    the person’s fundamental right under Article 21 and at the same time
    guarantee the presence, would be reasonable and proportionate. As
    to what such an order should be, will again depend on the facts and
    circumstances of each case.
24. In Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation &
    Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51, this Court held that “imposing a condition
    which is impossible of compliance would be defeating the very object
    of release.”
[2024] 8 S.C.R.                                                        571

           Girish Gandhi v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.


25. This Court, in SLP (Criminal) Nos. 8914-8915 of 2018 [Hani Nishad
    @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh],
    has made the following order in a situation where the petitioner was
    faced with 31 cases:
           “Considering the submissions, the impugned order is
           modified to the extent that the petitioner shall execute a
           personal bond for Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand
           only) and the same bond shall hold good for all 31 cases.
           There shall be two sureties who shall execute the bond
           for Rs. 30,000/- which bond shall hold good for all the 31
           cases. It is clarified that the personal bond so executed
           by the Petitioner and the bond so executed by the two
           sureties shall hold good for all the 31 cases.
           With these observations, the Special Leave Petitions are
           disposed of.
           Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.”
     In Hani Nishad (supra) only one State was involved, as all the
     cases were pending in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
26. We may also usefully note the order of this Court In Re Policy Strategy
    for Grant of Bail in SMWP (Criminal) No. 4/2021 reported in 2023
    SCC OnLine SC 483. By the order dated 31.01.2023, this Court
    endorsing certain directions sought by the Amicus Curiae passed
    an order for compliance with those directions. The two relevant
    directions are extracted hereunder:-
           “6) If the bail bonds are not furnished within one month
           from the date of grant bail, the concerned Court may suo
           moto take up the case and consider whether the conditions
           of bail require modification/relaxation.
           7) One of the reasons which delays the release of the
           accused/convict is the insistence upon local surety. It is
           suggested that in such cases, the courts may not impose
           the condition of local surety.”
27. In the bail order in FIR No. 190/2020 registered at P.S. Savina,
    Udaipur, Rajasthan, there is an order for providing a local surety.
    The petitioner herein hails from Haryana and to secure a local surety
    will be an arduous task for him. This condition has virtually rendered
572                                                          [2024] 8 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


       ineffective the order for bail. We need to do nothing more than to
       recall the memorable words of Justice Krishna Iyer in Moti Ram and
       Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1978) 4 SCC 47 :-
            “33. To add insult to injury, the magistrate has demanded
            sureties from his own district! (we assume the allegation
            in the petition). What is a Malayalee, Kannadiga, Tamil
            or Telugu to do if arrested for alleged misappropriation or
            theft or criminal trespass in Bastar, Port Blair Pahalgam
            or Chandni Chowk? He cannot have sureties owning
            properties in these distant places. He may not know any
            one there and might have come in a batch or to seek a
            job or in a morcha. Judicial disruption of Indian unity is
            surest achieved by such provincial allergies. What law
            prescribes sureties from outside or non-regional language
            applications? What law prescribes the geographical
            discrimination implicit in asking for sureties from the court
            district? This tendency takes many forms, sometimes,
            geographic, sometimes linguistic, sometimes legalistic.
            Article 14 protects all Indians qua Indians, within the
            territory of India. Article 350 sanctions representation to
            any authority, including a court, for redress of grievances
            in any language used in the Union of India. Equality before
            the law implies that even a vakalat or affirmation made
            in any State language according to the law in that State
            must be accepted everywhere in the territory of India save
            where a valid legislation to the contrary exists. Otherwise,
            an adivasi will be unfree in Free India, and likewise many
            other minorities. This divagation has become necessary
            to still the judicial beginnings, and to inhibit the process
            of making Indians aliens in their own homeland. Swaraj
            is made of united stuff.”
       In view of the above, we propose to relieve the petitioner from the
       direction to produce a local surety.
28. 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
[2024] 8 S.C.R.                                                       573

           Girish Gandhi v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.


     all FIRs in the concerned State, for cases mentioned in the chart
     set out hereinabove. The same set of sureties is permitted to stand
     as surety in all the States. We feel that this direction will meet the
     ends of justice and will be proportionate and reasonable. For the
     State of Uttar Pradesh, the above direction shall hold good for FIR
     No. 1028/2020 registered at P.S. Civil Lines, Moradabad, Uttar
     Pradesh, FIR No. 685/2020 registered at P.S. Vrindavan, Mathura,
     Uttar Pradesh, FIR No. 309/2020 registered at P.S. Siddhartha Nagar,
     Siddhartha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, FIR No. 343/2020 registered at
     P.S. Kotwali, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, FIR No. 294/2020 registered
     at P.S. Sipri Bazar, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh and FIR No. 222/2020
     registered at P.S. Tulsipur, Balrampur, Uttar Pradesh. Insofar as
     the State of Uttar Pradesh is concerned, the personal bond for Rs.
     50,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs. 30,000/- shall be executed in
     regard to FIR No. 685/2020 registered at P.S. Vrindavan, Mathura.
     This personal bond and the bond of surety will enure to the benefit
     of all the other FIRs in the State of Uttar Pradesh mentioned in the
     Chart set out in Para 4 herein above.
29. For the State of Punjab, the above direction shall hold good for the
    FIR No. 297/2020 registered at P.S. Kotwali, Patiala, Punjab.
30. For the State of Rajasthan, the above direction shall hold good for
    the FIR No. 190/2020 registered at P.S. Savina, Udaipur, Rajasthan
    and FIR No. 190/2020 registered at P.S. Kotgate, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
    The personal bond and the sureties as directed above, insofar as
    the State of Rajasthan is concerned, shall be executed in regard to
    FIR No. 190/2020 registered at P.S. Savina, Udaipur. This personal
    bond and the bond of surety will enure to the benefit of the other
    FIR registered in the State of Rajasthan as mentioned in the Chart
    set out in Para 4 herein above.
31. For the State of Uttarakhand, the above direction shall hold good
    for the FIR No. 146/2020 registred at P.S. Jwalapur, Haridwar,
    Uttarakhand.
32. This condition will supersede the condition imposed in the respective
    bail orders. We repeat that we have not dealt with FIR No. 608 of
    2022 dated 13.09.2022 registered at P.S. Vibhuti Khand, District
    Lucknow, U.P., FIR No. 141 of 2023 dated 21.05.2023 registered
    at P.S. Tulsipur, District Balrampur, U.P. and FIR No. 230 of 2020
    registered at P.S. Sadarpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan or any other
574                                                          [2024] 8 S.C.R.

                          Digital Supreme Court Reports


       FIR other than the one mentioned in the chart mentioned in para 4
       hereinabove which the petitioner may be involved with. Petitioner
       may pursue independent proceedings with regard to those matters.
33. The writ petition is allowed in terms of the directions given hereinabove.

       Result of the case: Writ petition allowed.



       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey