Source: The Hindu 

Introduction 

The Oxford Dictionary defines the term ‘surety’ as a person who takes responsibility for another’s obligation. 

• The Supreme Court has recently in the case of Girish Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) held that same two persons were enough to stand sureties for all 13 cases in which the person got bail.  
• A bench comprising of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan delivered the above judgment.  

What is the Law Regarding Sureties under Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC)?

• Section 441 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) provides for bond of the accused and sureties. 
  • Clause (1) provides that before any person is released on bail or released on his own bond: 
    • A bond of sum as the Court 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. 
  • When any condition is imposed for release of a person on bail, the bond shall also contain that condition. 
  • The bond shall also bind the person released on bail to appear when called upon at the High Court or Court of Session or other Court to answer the charge. 
  • Clause (4) provides that the Court may accept affidavits in proof of the fact relating to sufficiency or fitness of sureties. 
    • The Court may also, if it considers necessary, either hold an inquiry itself or cause an inquiry to be made by the Magistrate as to such sufficiency or fitness. 
• Section 441A of CrPC provides for the declaration to be made by sureties. 
  • This Section provides that every person standing as a surety shall make a declaration before the Court as to the number of persons to whom he has stood surety including the accused, giving therein all the relevant particulars. 
• Section 444 of CrPC lays down the procedure for discharge of sureties. 
  • Clause (1) provides All or any sureties for the attendance and appearance of a person released on bail may at any time apply to a Magistrate to discharge the bond, either wholly or so far as relates to the applicants. 
  • Clause (2) provides that on such application being made, the Magistrate shall issue his warrant of arrest directing that the person so released be brought before him. 
  • Clause (3) provides that on the appearance of such person pursuant to the warrant, or on his voluntary surrender, the Magistrate shall direct the bond to be discharged either wholly or so far as relates to the applicants, and shall call upon such person to find other sufficient sureties, and, if he fails to do so, may commit him to jail. 
• Section 446 of CrPC provides for the procedure when the bond has been forfeited: 
  • Where a bond has been forfeited the Court shall record grounds of such proof and may call upon the person bound by the bond to pay penalty or to show cause why it should not be paid. 
  • If sufficient cause as above is not shown and penalty not paid the Court may recover the penalty as if it were a fine imposed by it. 
    • Where the penalty is not paid and cannot be recovered in the manner provided the person bound a surety shall be liable to imprisonment in civil jail for a term of six months.  
  • The Court may enforce the payment of penalty in part only. 
  • Where a surety dies before the bond is forfeited his estate shall be discharged from all liability in respect of the bond.  
  • Clause (5) applies in cases where a person has furnished security under Section 106, Section 117 or Section 360 of CrPC. 

What are the Relevant Provisions Regarding Sureties under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)? 

• The provision of CrPC and its corresponding provision in BNSS is as follows:

Can a Surety Already Furnished be Enough for Other Cases as well?  

• The Court observed that the choices for a person to get any individual to stand as a surety are very limited. 
• In criminal proceedings these choices become further restricted as the normal tendency of the people is not to disclose about the criminal proceedings to relatives and friends to protect one’s reputation. 
• The Court observed that this has been a rule since times immemorial that excessive bail is no bail at all.  
• Where an accused enlarged on bail is unable to find sufficient sureties as ordered in multiple cases there is a need to balance the requirement of furnishing the securities with his or her fundamental Rights under Article 21 of Constitution of India, 1950 (COI). 
• In the case of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation Anr (2022), the Court held that “imposing a condition which is impossible of compliance would be defeating the very object of release.” 
• Further, in the case of In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail (2023), the Court has held that the Court may refrain from imposing a condition that the accused should produce local surety.  
• In the case of Girish Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) the Court held that one set of sureties is enough with respect to multiple cases filed in multiple states

Conclusion 

The Supreme Court has time and again reiterated that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. This is because the fundamental right under Article 21 of COI is so sacrosanct that it cannot be infringed lightly. Thus, the Courts must always refrain from imposing conditions of bail that would be difficult to comply with. Hence, the Supreme Court held in this case that keeping in view the fundamental right under Article 21 same persons are enough to stand as sureties when there are multiple cases against the accused.