NAINITAL, India, Feb. 24 -- Uttarakhand High Court issued the following judgment/order on JAN. 22:

1. The present application has been filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking a direction to permit the Applicant to furnish common sureties in respect of all 120 cases, as mentioned in the relief clause of the Application, in which bail has already been granted by the court below but the Applicant could not be released since he could not arrange the separate sureties in each of the cases.

2. The brief facts of the case are that multiple FIRs have been lodged against the Applicant at Police Station Bahadrabad, District Haridwar, for offences under Sections 420, 120-B, 504, 506, 427 & 406 of the IPC. The total number of cases stands at 120. The Applicant contends that he is Director of the company, namely, M/s Octagon Builder and Promoters Private Limited, but he could not complete the project. Multiple F.I.R.s have been lodged against him, which are similar in nature.

3. It is submitted that the Applicant has been in judicial custody since long. In several of the said cases, he has been granted bail by the learned courts below. However, his release could not be secured as the orders require him to furnish two separate sureties in each case, which is practically impossible considering the large number of cases.

4. The Applicant applied for bail in all 120 cases, the reference of which has been given in the relief clause of the application, which are reproduced as below:-

Table omitted can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816x5MkJJB%2F%2BhYnhsZ1z3eIYh%2BFNcDCyjD3p3o1tn3V5RBH&caseno=C528/2266/2025&cCode=1&cino=UKHC010202192025&state_code=15&appFlag=)

5. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that, in similar circumstances, the Coordinate Benches of this Court has granted relief by permitting common sureties in Criminal Misc. Application No. C-528 No.226 of 2024 decided on 16.08.2024 and Criminal Misc. Application No.C-528 No.369 of 2025 decided on 25.03.2025.

6. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the application on the ground that the satisfaction of sureties lies within the discretion of the trial court, and the informants in the individual cases should also be heard before any blanket relief is granted.

7. This Court considered the submissions of both sides and perused the record. It is evident that the Applicant is facing multiple prosecutions, all arising out of similar allegations of cheating in the name of providing land/plots. In most of these cases, he has been enlarged on bail, but his continued incarceration is solely due to his inability to furnish separate sureties in each case.

8. The Coordinate Benches of this Court, in previous orders dated 16.08.2024 and 25.03.2025 passed in the matter of co-accused, Anjali Tyagi, have granted similar relief, allowing the Applicant to furnish common sureties in multiple cases. The present matter stands on the same footing.

9. This Court is, therefore, confronted with the question as to whether, in such exceptional circumstances, the Applicant may be permitted to furnish a single set of sureties and personal bond to operate across all the FIRs in which bail has already been granted.

10. The provisions of Section 441 of the Code of Criminal Procedure govern the nature and sufficiency of bonds and sureties to be executed upon the grant of bail. The law empowers the Court to determine, in each case, what conditions would reasonably secure the presence of the accused at trial.

11. In the opinion of this Court, when bail has already been granted in each of the 120 FIRs, and there is no allegation of breach of conditions or flight risk, the continued incarceration of the Applicant solely for want of multiple sureties is neither procedurally necessary nor constitutionally tenable.

12. This Court is also mindful of recent judicial observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in comparable contexts, particularly in Girish Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2024 INSC 617), where, in view of multiple prosecutions and the impossibility of furnishing distinct sureties in each case, the Hon'ble Apex Court permitted the accused to execute one personal bond and two common sureties per State, holding such a direction to be legally permissible, proportionate, and consistent with the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution.

13. It has also been judicially recognised that when the substratum of allegations is common, the imposition of repetitive surety conditions may, in effect, operate as a denial of bail in substance, even where it has been formally granted.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816x5MkJJB%2F%2BhYnhsZ1z3eIYh%2BFNcDCyjD3p3o1tn3V5RBH&caseno=C528/2266/2025&cCode=1&cino=UKHC010202192025&state_code=15&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.