P&H HC Lets Amira Pure Foods Employee Use Common ₹10 Lakh Bail Bonds Across About 120 NI Act Cases, Subject To Separate Bail Orders

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioner could rely on common bail and surety bonds across multiple Section 138 complaints, rather than furnish separate bonds in each case.

The court held

The petition was disposed of with a direction that bail and surety bonds to the tune of ₹10,00,000 would hold good for the petitioner’s remaining cases before the trial courts at Kaithal, Kurukshetra and Karnal, subject to separate orders granting bail in each case.

It also directed

The surety may furnish a common affidavit for those cases.

The petitioner remains required to appear as directed; absence in any case may lead to forfeiture proceedings in accordance with law.

The order was directed to be forwarded to the concerned trial courts for information and compliance.

01Facts

The petitioner, an employee of M/s Amira Pure Foods Private Limited, was facing approximately 120 complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, including 85 pending in Kaithal Sessions Division and others in Kurukshetra and Karnal.

p. 2, 7

On 12 May 2025, the High Court observed that bail and surety bonds furnished in one case could be considered common bonds for other cases, subject to separate bail orders in those cases.

p. 2

After the petitioner furnished bail bonds of ₹2,00,000 with one surety in a Kaithal complaint, another trial court directed her to furnish fresh common surety bonds of ₹1,00,00,000.

pp. 2–3

She sought directions permitting common bonds across the complaints.

pp. 1–2

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioner could rely on common bail and surety bonds across multiple Section 138 complaints, rather than furnish separate bonds in each case.

pp. 1–2, 7

ii.Whether the surety could provide one common affidavit disclosing the relevant particulars and commitments for those cases.

p. 7

03Law Applied

Bail conditions must be reasonable and proportionate; excessive or practically impossible conditions may defeat the grant of bail and infringe the accused’s right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

pp. 4–6, 7

In Girish Gandhi v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, 2024 INSC 617, the Supreme Court addressed the difficulty of furnishing multiple sureties and directed common bonds for cases within specified States; it also relied on the approach in Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky v. State of Uttar Pradesh, where common bonds were permitted for 31 cases.

pp. 5–6

Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51, establishes that a condition impossible to comply with defeats the object of release on bail.

p. 5

Section 441(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or Section 485(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, permits the court to accept affidavits regarding the sufficiency or fitness of sureties, or to hold an inquiry if necessary.

p. 7

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 441

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 485

04Reasoning

The petitioner faced a large number of complaints, making separate and substantial sureties in each case an onerous and practically difficult requirement.

p. 3, 7

Applying the Supreme Court’s reasoning on proportionate bail conditions and the protection of personal liberty, the High Court held that common bonds could address the need to secure the petitioner’s appearance without imposing an excessive burden.

pp. 6–7

It also relied on the statutory power to accept affidavits and permitted a common affidavit disclosing the surety’s particulars and commitments, while leaving the trial courts free to inquire where necessary.

p. 7