Kerala High Court: The issue was whether an accused facing multiple criminal cases could be permitted to execute a consolidated bail bond instead of separate bonds in each case. A Single Judge Bench of Bechu Kurian Joseph, J., emphasising the peculiar circumstance where bail had already been granted in various cases relating to CSR Funds Scam, yet the accused was still in custody, held that a single surety bond executed within each district could be treated as sufficient for all cases pending in that district.
Background:
As per the first case registered against the accused, he had committed criminal breach of trust on the members of a society called Socio Economic Environmental Development Society (‘SEED’) by promising to deliver various articles at half the price by utilising Corporate Social Responsibility (‘CSR’) funds and funds from various non-governmental organisations. He was the second accused in that crime and was alleged to have incorporated a condition in the trust deed regarding the concept of CSR funds.
The Superintendent of Police stated that the accused was arrested on 11-02-2025 and was continuing as a remand prisoner at the Central Prison and was arrayed as one of the accused in all cases registered all over the State. He further pleaded that the bail bonds were executed for ensuring the presence of the accused for investigation and trial, and if the reliefs sought for by the accused were granted, it would not be possible to take any remedial measures by forfeiting the bonds unless it was executed before the appropriate jurisdictional Court.
The accused had more than 1200 cases registered across different police stations in the State. The Investigating Officer stated that a total of 1343 cases were registered against the accused, out of which 1297 cases were transferred to the Crime Branch for investigation. He was granted bail in 738 cases in which his arrest was recorded and was aggrieved by the conditions imposed in all the bail orders which mandated execution of a bail bond with two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the Court having jurisdiction. According to him, the condition turned out to be too onerous for compliance, and he was still in custody.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court noted that even though bail was granted to the accused in similar matters and no further cases remained where it was not granted, the accused continued to remain in custody for failure to arrange sureties and execute the bail bonds. In most of the bail orders, the Court had permitted the same sureties but the accused was not able to obtain release from custody.
The Court relied on Girish Gandhi v. State of U.P., (2024) 10 SCC 674, where the Supreme Court had reiterated that excessive bail is no bail and imposing excessive and onerous conditions is to take away with the left hand, what is given with the right. The Supreme Court had directed that for the FIRs pending in each of the different States, two sureties were permitted to execute a bond which was directed to hold good for all FIRs in the State concerned and the same set of sureties were permitted in all the other States, which was found to meet the ends of justice and proportionate and reasonable.
The Court referred to Manoj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8035, where the Court had directed a consolidated bond to be executed through the same sureties in respect of 21 separate crimes pending against the accused therein, noting that he could not obtain release from custody despite obtaining bail.
The Court noted that the liberty granted to him through bail orders remained illusory as he continued to languish in jail, and the separate bail bonds liable to be executed by the sureties required them to travel to various Magistrate Courts all over the State. The Court acknowledged that the requirement of executing bail bonds is to ensure that the sureties are bound to produce the accused in case he fails to appear and if they are unable to do that, they can be proceeded against to the extent of the bail bond executed by them. Thus, a surety gives the requisite assurance to the Court that the person on bail would be produced as and when required by the Court for facing trial or for undergoing the sentence awarded.
The Court opined that the exercise of the sureties to be present before each Court and given that same sureties were permitted considering the large volume of cases, it would take several months to complete the said process and would lead to untold misery for a person who has been granted bail already.
The Court observed that an exceptional circumstance had arisen which must persuade the Court, as a sentinel of qui vive to exercise the constitutional power, to ensure that the accused enjoyed the liberty granted to him without being subjected to excessive or onerous procedural obstacles that would undermine and frustrate the very purpose of granting bail. A single surety bond executed by each surety to the petitioner in any one case within a district should be treated as valid for all cases against him in that district, pending before different Magistrate Courts.
Accordingly, the Court directed that the accused could execute a single surety bond of Rs 5 lakh for each surety within each district, in one of the selected cases. The surety bonds so executed would be sufficient in respect of each individual crime registered against the accused in that district, provided the sureties filed an affidavit before each Court that such bond executed by them would cover all the cases in that district individually.
[K.N. Anand Kumar v. State of Kerala, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 12372, decided on 13-11-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: S. Rajeev, Raajesh S. Subrahmanian, Advocates.
For the Respondents: P. Narayanan, Spl. Government Pleader.