Bail granted in all 13 cases. He still couldn't walk free.

One Man, 13 FIRs, Six States, and a Bail He Couldn't Use

Girish Gandhi had been granted bail in every single one of the 13 criminal cases against him. The trial courts in Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, and Kerala had all said the same thing: he could walk free. But Gandhi didn't walk. He stayed in jail. The reason wasn't a new charge or a prosecution appeal. It was the sureties.

Each bail order demanded a separate set of personal bonds and sureties. Gandhi, a man with a physically handicapped wife, a young son, and an aged mother, could not find the people or the money to furnish 13 distinct surety bonds across six different states. He was the sole breadwinner. The bail orders were, for all practical purposes, worthless pieces of paper. The stakes were simple: his freedom, his family's survival, and a fundamental question about whether the criminal justice system's procedural machinery could be allowed to defeat its own substantive promise of liberty.

The Franchise That Went Wrong

Gandhi was associated with White Blue Retail Pvt. Ltd., a company that offered franchise agreements for opening grocery shops. The model was straightforward: franchisees paid an upfront amount and a refundable security deposit. In return, the company promised rent-free space, commissions, dividends, and profit margins. It was a classic business pitch. But the promises, according to the complainants, were never kept.

Between 2020 and 2023, 13 First Information Reports were registered against Gandhi across six states. The charges were under the Indian Penal Code for cheating, criminal breach of trust, and criminal intimidation. Gandhi was arrested, and he approached the various trial courts for bail.

Bail Granted, Freedom Denied

The trial courts — the Special Judge & Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind, and others across the states — all granted bail. The orders became final. The prosecution did not challenge a single one. But each order came with its own conditions: a personal bond and one or more sureties, often with a requirement that the surety be a local resident.

Gandhi was stuck. He could not furnish 13 separate sets of sureties. He could not find local sureties in Rajasthan when he lived in Uttar Pradesh. He could not afford the time or money to travel between states to arrange bonds. The bail he had been granted was, in the words of the Supreme Court later, "a right given with one hand and taken away with the other."

He filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution directly before the Supreme Court of India. His prayer was simple: let one set of personal bonds and sureties be treated as sufficient for all the bail orders. Let me walk free.

What the State Said

The State of Uttar Pradesh, through the learned Counsel, opposed the petition. The argument was procedural: each FIR was a separate case, each bail order was a separate judicial act, and each required its own compliance. The sureties were not just a formality — they were the mechanism by which the court ensured the accused's presence at trial. To consolidate them would undermine that mechanism.

Gandhi's Counsel, on the other hand, pointed to the hard realities. The man had been granted bail in all 13 cases. The prosecution had not challenged a single order. Yet he remained in custody. The purpose of bail — to secure the accused's presence while respecting his liberty — was being subverted by the very conditions meant to achieve it.

The Hard Realities of Life in India

Justice K.V. Viswanathan, writing for the Bench that also included Justice B.R. Gavai, began by acknowledging something that rarely appears in a judgment: the real-world difficulty of finding a surety.

"The choice for a person seeking sureties is very limited," the Court observed. "Usually it is a close relative or a longtime friend. In criminal proceedings, the circle narrows further as people tend not to disclose criminal proceedings to protect reputation. These are hard realities of life in India."

This was not a legal proposition. It was a sociological observation. But it was the foundation on which the entire judgment was built. The Court was not going to treat the surety requirement as an abstract legal formality. It was going to look at what it actually meant for a person like Girish Gandhi.

The Precedent That Pointed the Way

The Court had a direct precedent. In Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (SLP (Criminal) Nos. 8914-8915 of 2018), the Supreme Court had permitted a single personal bond and two sureties to hold good for all 31 FIRs against the accused — but all 31 were within a single state. Gandhi's case was different: his FIRs spanned six states.

But the principle was the same. And the Court had other tools. In Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. ((2022) 10 SCC 51), the Court had held that imposing a bail condition which is impossible of compliance defeats the very object of release on bail. In In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail (2023 SCC OnLine SC 483), the Court had directed that if bail bonds are not furnished within one month, the court should suo motu consider modification or relaxation of conditions. And in Moti Ram and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh ((1978) 4 SCC 47), the Court had held that demanding local sureties amounts to geographical discrimination violating Article 14.

The law was clear. The question was how to apply it across six states.

The Test: Article 21 vs. the Surety Requirement

The Court framed the issue in constitutional terms. The right to personal liberty under Article 21 was at stake. The surety requirement under Section 441 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (and its corresponding provision, Section 480 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) was a statutory mechanism to ensure the accused's presence. The two had to be balanced.

"An order which protects Article 21 rights while guaranteeing presence is reasonable and proportionate," the Court held. "What constitutes such an order depends on the facts of each case."

The Court then turned to the specific facts. Gandhi had 13 FIRs. He had been granted bail in all. He could not furnish separate sureties. The solution was not to abolish the surety requirement — it was to consolidate it in a way that was workable.

THE PLAY: When an accused is granted bail in multiple FIRs across different states but cannot furnish separate sureties, move the Supreme Court under Article 32 for a direction that one set of personal bond and sureties per state shall hold good for all FIRs in that state, with the same sureties permitted to stand across all states.

The Order: State-Wise Consolidation

The Court allowed the writ petition. The operative order was precise. For the FIRs in each state — Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Punjab, and Uttarakhand — Gandhi would furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of Rs. 30,000 each. These would hold good for all FIRs in that state. The same sureties were permitted to stand across all states. The local surety condition in the Rajasthan FIR (FIR No. 190/2020) was removed outright.

The Court explicitly excluded three FIRs from this order: FIR No. 608/2022, FIR No. 141/2023, and FIR No. 230/2020, along with any other FIRs not listed in the chart at paragraph 4 of the judgment. The prayer regarding FIR No. 141/2023 was rejected outright, with liberty to pursue independent proceedings.

The order superseded the bail conditions in the respective bail orders. Gandhi could now furnish four sets of bonds and sureties — one for each state — instead of 13. And he could use the same two sureties for all four states.

Why This Matters in Practice

For advocates, this judgment is a procedural weapon. The standard response to a client who has been granted bail but cannot furnish sureties has been to go back to the trial court for modification. That works — but it takes time, and it requires a separate application in each case. This judgment offers a shortcut: a single writ petition under Article 32, consolidating all the cases, and asking for a single set of conditions.

For founders and CFOs, the lesson is different. The charges against Gandhi arose from a business model that went wrong. Franchise agreements, security deposits, and promised returns — these are the building blocks of many legitimate businesses. But when they fail, the criminal law can descend with terrifying speed. The judgment is a reminder that the criminal justice system's procedural machinery can be as punishing as the substantive law itself. A person can be granted bail and still remain in jail. The solution is not just to win the legal argument — it is to manage the procedural logistics.

The Bottom Line

If your client has been granted bail in multiple FIRs across multiple states but cannot furnish separate sureties, file a single Article 32 petition before the Supreme Court and ask for state-wise consolidation of surety conditions — the Court has now shown it will grant that relief to protect the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21.