Excessive bail is no bail, the Supreme Court said on Thursday while observing that granting the relief and then imposing onerous conditions is to take away with the left hand, what is given with the right.

The apex court said an order which would protect the person's fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and at the same time guarantee his or her presence, would be reasonable and proportionate.

A bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan delivered its verdict on a plea filed by a man, against whom 13 FIRs have been lodged in several states for various offences including that of cheating.

The petitioner had contended before the apex court that he was granted bail in these 13 cases and he has fulfilled the bail conditions in two of them.

The top court noted the main plea of the petitioner was that he was not in a position to furnish separate sureties, as directed in the remaining 11 bail orders.

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

"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," it said, adding that as to what was excessive would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Referring to the case, the bench said the petitioner was experiencing a "genuine difficulty" in finding multiple sureties.

It observed that sureties were essential to ensure the presence of the accused who has been released on bail.

"At the same time, when 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 requirement of furnishing the sureties with his or her fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India," it said.

The bench, which referred to definition of 'surety', noted whether it was 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 was very limited.

It said surety would very often be a close relative or a longtime friend and in a criminal proceeding, the circle may get even more narrowed as the normal tendency was to not disclose about such 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," it said.

The bench noted that in one of the bail orders in an FIR registered in Rajasthan, there was an order for providing a local surety.

It said the petitioner hails from Haryana and to secure a local surety will be an arduous task for him.

"Keeping the principles discussed hereinabove, we direct that for the FIRs pending in each of the states of Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Punjab and Uttarakhand, in each state, the petitioner will furnish his personal bond for Rs 50,000 and furnish two sureties who shall execute the bond for Rs 30,000 each which shall hold good for all FIRs in the concerned state...," the bench said.