Aparna Puri vs State Of Haryana And Others

CRM-37999-2026 in/and
CRM-M-21683-2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
117
CRM-37999-2026 in/and
CRM-M-21683-2025
Decided on :27.10.2026

Aparna Puri . . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others . . . Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present: Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. H.S. Randhawa, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner.
Mr. Ruchi Sekhri, Addl. A.G. Haryana.

SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral)
1. On the oral request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the
main case, i.e. CRM-M-21683-2025, is preponed from 02.12.2026 to
27.10.2026, i.e. today.
2. By way of the instant petition, petitioner has, inter alia,
prayed for issuance of appropriate directions to the trial Courts at
Kurukshetra, Karnal and Kaithal, permitting her to furnish a common
personal bond and surety bond(s) of a reasonable amount for all the
complaints instituted against her and M/s Amira Pure Foods Private
Limited, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for
short, ‘the NI Act’).
3. In support of the aforesaid prayer, learned counsel for the
petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Girish Gandhi v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others ,
LAVISHA
2026.11.03 18:48
I agree to specified portions
of this document

CRM-37999-2026 in/and
CRM-M-21683-2025 2
(Writ Petition (Criminal) No.149 of 2024, decided on 22.08.2024,
reported as 2024 INSC 617).
4. Record reveals that, vide order dated 12.05.2025, this Court
had already noticed the contention of petitioner that she was merely an
employee of the company and had been appointed to sign the disputed
cheques, on account of which she was facing more than 120 complaints
under Section 138 of the NI Act. Taking note of the aforesaid
circumstances, this Court observed that the bail bonds/surety bonds
furnished by the petitioner in one case could also be considered as
common bail bonds/surety bonds for the remaining cases also, subject to
the separate orders granting bail in those cases.
The relevant part of the order dated 12.05.2025 reads as
under:
“ On request of learned State counsel, adjourned to
14.07.2025.
Meanwhile, in the eventuality of granting of bail to the
petitioner in any such case and furnishing of bail
bonds/surety bonds, thereon it may be considered as
common bail bond/surety bond qua all other remaining
cases also, if any separate order(s) of bail is/are passed
thereon.”
5. On 04.10.2025, petitioner appeared before the trial Court at
Kaithal, in complaint case titled M/s Sat Narain v. M/s Amira Pure
Foods, bearing CIS No. 978 of 2016 and since, the offence under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is bailable, petitioner was
admitted to bail upon furnishing bail bonds in the sum of 2,00,000/- ₹
LAVISHA
2026.11.03 18:48
I agree to specified portions
of this document

CRM-37999-2026 in/and
CRM-M-21683-2025 3
with one surety in the like amount. The requisite bail bonds in the said
complaint case were furnished by the petitioner .
6. In another complaint case pending within Kaithal Sessions
Division, titled M/s Mansa Devi v. M/s Amira Pure Foods, bearing CIS
No. 1100 of 2016 (A-4), trial Court took note of the order dated
12.05.2025 passed by this Court, and the fact that petitioner has already
furnished bail bonds in CIS No.978 of 2016, however, directed the
petitioner to furnish fresh common surety bonds to the tune of
₹ 1,00,00,000/-, to the satisfaction of the Court.
7. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner, being an
employee of the accused company, is facing approximately 120
complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act, out of which 85 cases are
pending before the concerned trial Courts, within Kaithal Sessions
Division.
Further submits that it is not feasible for the petitioner that
qua each of the bail orders, she can furnish these many numbers of bail
bonds/surety bonds etc. It is almost impossible for anyone to arrange
these many sureties to earn the benefit of bail orders in all such cases.
8. The issue involved in the present petition can be
appropriately examined in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Girish Gandhi’s case (supra) . In the said case, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the difficulties faced by an accused
who was granted bail in multiple number of cases instituted at different
LAVISHA
2026.11.03 18:48
I agree to specified portions
of this document

CRM-37999-2026 in/and
CRM-M-21683-2025 4
places and in different States, but was unable to secure release on account
of his inability to furnish separate sureties in each case.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that, in the cases
pending in different States, such as Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Punjab and
Uttarakhand, the accused had been granted bail but continued to face
difficulties in furnishing the requisite sureties. The Court, therefore,
examined the purpose of requiring bail bonds and sureties and
emphasised the need to balance such requirements against the
fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. Relevant observations made in paragraphs 21 to 26
of the judgment read as under:
“ 21. The Oxford Dictionary defines "surety" as "a person who
takes responsibility for another's obligation". Advanced Law
Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 3rd Edition 2005 defines 'surety"
to mean "the bail that undertakes for another man in a criminal
case.”
22. Whether it is to get individuals, to stand as a guarantor for a
loan transaction or as a Surety in a criminal proceeding, the
choice for a person is very limited. It will very often be a close
relative or a longtime friend. In a criminal proceeding, the circle
may get even more narrowed as the normal tendency is to not
disclose about the said criminal proceeding to relatives and
friends, to protect one's reputation. These are hard realities of life
in our country and as a court of law we cannot shut our eyes to
them. A solution, however, has to be found strictly within the
framework of the law
23. From time immemorial, the principle has been that the
excessive bail is no bail. To grant bail and thereafter to impose
excessive and onerous conditions, is to take away with the left
LAVISHA
2026.11.03 18:48
I agree to specified portions
of this document

CRM-37999-2026 in/and
CRM-M-21683-2025 5
hand, What is given with the right. As to what is excessive will
depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the
present case, the petitioner is experiencing a genuine difficulty in
finding multiple sureties. Sureties are essential to ensure the
presence of the accused, released on bail. At the same time,
where the court is faced with the situation where the accused
enlarged on bail is unable to find sureties,
as ordered, in multiple cases, there is also a need to balance the 
requitement of furnishing the sureties with his of her fundamenta
fights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. An order
which would protect the person's fundamental right under Article
21 and at the same time guarantee the presence, would be
reasonable and proportionate. As to what such an order should
be, will again depend on the facts and circumstances of each
case
24. In Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51 , this Court held that
imposing a condition which is impossible of compliance would be
defeating the very object of release."
25. This Court, in SLP (Criminal) Nos. 8914-8915 of 2018 [ Hani
Nishad @ Mohammud Imran @ Vikky vs. The State of Uttar
Pradesh] , has made the following order in a situation where the
petitioner was faced with 31 cases:
"Considering the submissions, the impugned order
is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall
execute a personal bond for Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees
Thirty thousand only) and the same bond shall hold
good for all 31 cases. There shall he two sureties
who shall execute the bond for Rs. 30,000/- which
bond shall hold good for all the 31 cases. It is
clarified that the personal bond so executed by the
Petitioner and the bond so executed by the two
sureties shall hold good for all the 3l cases.
LAVISHA
2026.11.03 18:48
I agree to specified portions
of this document

CRM-37999-2026 in/and
CRM-M-21683-2025 6
With these observations, the Special Leave Petitions are
disposed of.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of."
In Hani Nishad (supra) only one State was involved, as
all the cases were pending in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
26. We may also usefully note the order of this Court In Re
Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail in SMWP (Criminal) No.
4/2021 reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 483 . By the order
dated 31.01.2023, this Court endorsing certain directions sought
by the Amicus Curiae passed an order for compliance with those
directions. The two relevant directions are extracted hereunder:-
"6) If the bail bonds are not furnished within one
month from the date of grant bail, the concerned
Court may suo moto take up the case and consider
whether the conditions of bail require
modification/relaxation.
7) One of the reasons which delays the release of
the accused/convict is the insistence upon local
surety. It is suggested that in such cases, the courts
may not impose the condition of local surety."
In Girish Gandhi’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court
further directed that, in respect of the cases covered by its order and
pending in the States of Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Punjab and
Uttarakhand, a personal bond of 50,000/- be furnished in each State, ₹
along with two sureties undertaking to execute bonds of 30,000/- each, ₹
which would hold good for the cases concerned in that State. Hon’ble
Apex Court also referred to the case of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad
Imran alias Vikky vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, SLP (Crl.) Nos.8914-
8915 of 2018, wherein a common personal bond and surety bonds were
permitted to operate in respect of all 31 cases pending against the accused
in that case.
LAVISHA
2026.11.03 18:48
I agree to specified portions
of this document

CRM-37999-2026 in/and
CRM-M-21683-2025 7
9. The principle emerging from the aforesaid judgments is that
the conditions imposed while granting bail must be reasonable and
proportionate and must not be rendered onerous to such an extent that
compliance becomes practically impossible. The requirement of securing
the presence of an accused before the Court has to be balanced against
the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
10. In the present case, the petitioner is facing approximately
120 complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act, out of which 85 cases
are stated to be pending before the concerned trial Courts at Kaithal only,
and remaining in other districts, i.e. Kurukshetra and Karnal.
Requiring the petitioner to furnish separate and substantial
sureties in each of these cases would impose an onerous burden upon her.
The principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Girish
Gandhi’s case (supra) are, therefore, relevant to the controversy in hand.
11. In view of the aforesaid legal position and as conceded by
learned counsel for both the parties, present petition is disposed of with a
direction that the bail bonds/surety bonds furnished by the petitioner to
the tune of ₹ 10,00,000/- shall hold good for all the remaining cases
pending against her before the trial Courts at Kaithal, Kurukshetra and
Karnal, subject to the passing of separate orders granting bail in the
respective cases.
It may also be noticed that Section 441(4) of Cr.P.C./Section
485(4) of BNSS, empowers the Court to accept affidavits in proof of
sufficiency or fitness of sureties, or to hold an inquiry where considered
LAVISHA
2026.11.03 18:48
I agree to specified portions
of this document

CRM-37999-2026 in/and
CRM-M-21683-2025 8
necessary. Accordingly, the surety whose bonds are directed to remain
valid for the remaining cases shall furnish a common affidavit disclosing
all the relevant particulars and entailing surety commitments, which may
be accepted by the concerned trial courts, without requiring separate
affidavits in each case.
12. It is, however, clarified that the aforesaid direction shall not
absolve the petitioner from the requirement appearing before the
concerned trial Courts, in accordance with law. In the event of her
absence in any one of the cases, concerned Court shall be at liberty to
initiate proceedings for forfeiture of the bail bonds/surety bonds, in
accordance with law, including the procedure prescribed for that purpose.
13. Let copy of this order be forwarded to the concerned trial
Courts at Kurukshetra, Karnal and Kaithal for information and necessary
compliance.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
27.10.2026
Rashmi
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
LAVISHA
2026.11.03 18:48
I agree to specified portions
of this document