The Supreme Court remarked on Thursday that imposing excessive conditions on an individual when granting bail is akin to taking back what was given. They emphasized that "excessive bail is no bail."

The bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan was hearing a petition from a man with 13 cases against him, including charges of cheating. In his plea, the petitioner contended that while he had been granted bail in all 13 cases, he could only meet the bail conditions for two of them and was unable to provide separate sureties for the remaining cases.

"The situation today is, in spite of obtaining bail in 13 cases, the petitioner has not been able to furnish sureties. 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 hand, what is given with the right," the bench said.

The Supreme Court also mentioned the petitioner’s "genuine difficulty" in securing multiple sureties for each bail. The bench pointed out that a surety is typically a relative or friend, but in criminal cases, the pool of potential sureties might be limited. This is because individuals may be reluctant to involve their relatives or friends in such matters due to concerns about protecting their 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," it said.

Further, the court mentioned the challenge of balancing the requirement for furnishing sureties with the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. In its order, the court noted that while the petitioner managed to secure a surety for a case in Haryana, he was unable to do so for another case registered in Rajasthan.