The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that common bail and surety bonds can operate across multiple cases pending against an accused before different trial courts, thereby removing the need to furnish separate bonds and arrange separate sureties in every case.The direction addresses a wider practical difficulty in securing the benefit of bail, particularly where an accused faces numerous prosecutions, and seeks to prevent repetitive procedural and financial requirements from making compliance virtually impossible. The arrangement, however, remains subject to separate bail orders in each case and the accused’s obligation to appear before the respective courts.The ruling by Justice Sanjay Vashisth came in a case where an accused was seeking directions to the trial courts at Kurukshetra, Karnal and Kaithal for permitting her to furnish a common personal bond and surety bonds of a reasonable amount for all the complaints instituted against her and an organisation in a cheques bounce case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.Justice Vashisth directed that bail bonds/surety bonds furnished by the accused, to the tune of Rs 10 lakh would hold good for all her remaining cheque-bounce cases pending before courts in Kaithal, Kurukshetra and Karnal. The direction was, however, subject to separate orders granting bail in the respective cases.Justice Vashisth’s Bench, during the course of hearing, was told the petitioner –– an employee appointed to sign the disputed cheques –– was facing approximately 120 complaints under Section 138. Of these, 85 cases were stated to be pending before trial courts in Kaithal Sessions Division, with the remaining cases in Kurukshetra and Karnal.A practical difficulty surfaced when the petitioner, after furnishing bail bonds of Rs 2 lakh with one surety in a complaint pending at Kaithal, was directed in another complaint to furnish fresh common surety bonds of Rs 1 crore.The State counsel also acknowledged the difficulty in arranging multiple sureties by submitting that “it is almost impossible for anyone to arrange these many sureties to earn the benefit of bail orders in all such cases.”Justice Vashisth held that the conditions imposed while granting bail must not become so onerous that compliance was practically impossible.The Bench observed that the conditions imposed while granting bail must be “reasonable and proportionate” and that securing an accused’s presence must be balanced against the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.Justice Vashisth directed the surety to furnish a common affidavit disclosing all relevant particulars and surety commitments, which could be accepted by the trial courts concerned “without requiring separate affidavits in each case.”The court nevertheless made it clear that the arrangement would not exempt the petitioner from appearing before the trial courts. It clarified that “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”.Justice Vashisth directed that copies be forwarded to the trial courts concerned at Kaithal, Kurukshetra and Karnal for information and necessary compliance.