Case at a Glance
An employee of a food company, who says she was appointed only to sign its cheques, faces about 120 complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in courts at Kaithal, Kurukshetra and Karnal. Some trial courts demanded separate bonds in each case, one even asking for fresh common surety bonds of Rs 1 crore. Relying on Girish Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2024) 08 SC CK 0045, Justice Sanjay Vashisth held that bail conditions must be reasonable and proportionate, and directed that her Rs 10 lakh bail and surety bonds will hold good in all the remaining cases, with one common surety affidavit.
The petitioner is an employee of a private food company. Her case is that she was appointed only to sign cheques, which were later dishonoured. About 120 complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 have been filed against the company and her; according to the State, 85 are pending in the Kaithal Sessions Division, and the rest are in Kurukshetra and Karnal. On 12 May 2025 the High Court had observed that bail and surety bonds furnished in one case could be treated as common bonds for the remaining cases, subject to separate bail orders in each.
In one Kaithal case, she was granted bail on 4 October 2025 on bonds of Rs 2,00,000 with one surety, and furnished them. But in another Kaithal case, the trial court, though aware of the High Court’s earlier order, directed her to furnish fresh common surety bonds of Rs 1,00,00,000. She returned to the High Court seeking a direction that trial courts accept a common personal bond and surety of a reasonable amount for all the complaints. The State accepted that furnishing separate sureties in about 120 cases was practically impossible.
The Key Question Before the Court
When an accused faces a very large number of bailable cheque-bounce cases in different courts, can the trial courts insist on separate (or very large) surety bonds in each case?
Bail Conditions Must Not Make Liberty Impossible
Justice Sanjay Vashisth relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Girish Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 INSC 617, where an accused on bail in many cases across several States could not furnish separate sureties in each, and the Supreme Court allowed one personal bond and two sureties per State, valid for all cases in that State. Girish Gandhi quotes Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 07 SC CK 0064, (2022) 10 SCC 51, that a condition impossible to comply with defeats the purpose of release. The Court also noted Hani Nishad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, where one bond and two sureties were allowed to cover 31 cases in one State, and the directions in In Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail that courts should reconsider bail conditions if bonds are not furnished within a month and should not ordinarily insist on local sureties.
The High Court held that bail conditions must be reasonable and proportionate and must not be so onerous that compliance becomes practically impossible; the need to secure the accused’s presence has to be balanced against personal liberty under Article 21. With about 120 complaints, 85 of them in Kaithal alone, requiring separate substantial sureties in each would place an onerous burden on her. Using Section 441(4) CrPC and the corresponding Section 485(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which allow sufficiency of sureties to be proved by affidavit, the Court permitted a single common affidavit by the surety for all cases.
What the Court Actually Held
- Bail conditions must be reasonable and proportionate; a condition so onerous that it cannot practically be met defeats bail and offends Article 21 (Girish Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh; Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation).
- The petitioner’s bail and surety bonds of Rs 10,00,000 will hold good for all remaining cases against her before the trial courts at Kaithal, Kurukshetra and Karnal, subject to separate bail orders in each case.
- The surety must file one common affidavit with full particulars under Section 441(4) CrPC / Section 485(4) BNSS, which trial courts may accept without separate affidavits in each case.
- The order does not excuse her from appearing as required; if she is absent in any case, that court may start forfeiture proceedings. A copy was sent to the three trial courts for compliance.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Employees and authorised signatories of companies often face dozens of cheque cases at once. This order shows how one bond can cover them all.
- It applies Girish Gandhi within a single State where trial courts were demanding very large or multiple sureties.
- It gives a ready procedure — a common surety affidavit under Section 485(4) BNSS — that other courts can follow.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Accused Persons
- If you face many cases and cannot arrange separate sureties, you can ask the High Court for a common bond relying on Girish Gandhi.
- A common bond does not remove the duty to appear in each court; absence can lead to forfeiture.
- Separate bail orders are still needed in each case.
For Counsel
- Place on record the number and location of cases and the State’s position on practicability; here the State itself conceded the difficulty.
- Seek a single surety affidavit under Section 441(4) CrPC / Section 485(4) BNSS covering all cases.
- Cite Satender Kumar Antil and In Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail on onerous and unmet bail conditions.
Key Takeaways
- About 120 cheque cases: one Rs 10 lakh bail and surety bond will cover all remaining cases.
- A trial court’s demand for Rs 1 crore surety was the trigger for the petition.
- One common surety affidavit is allowed under Section 485(4) BNSS.
- She must still appear in each case; default can lead to forfeiture.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does this mean the cheque cases are over?
No. The order only concerns bail bonds. The Section 138 complaints continue, and separate bail orders are required in each case.
What did the Supreme Court decide in Girish Gandhi?
In Girish Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court held that bail conditions should not be so onerous as to make release impossible, and allowed one personal bond and sureties per State to cover multiple cases.
What happens if she misses a hearing?
The concerned trial court may initiate forfeiture proceedings for the bonds in accordance with law.
Conclusion
The order applies a simple principle to a practical problem: bail granted in law must be capable of being availed in fact. Where an employee faces about 120 cheque complaints, insisting on separate or crore-rupee sureties in each case would make bail illusory, and the High Court has replaced that with one common bond and affidavit.
Practical takeaway: In mass cheque-bounce or multi-FIR situations, seek a common bail and surety bond relying on Girish Gandhi, while ensuring appearance in every case.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com