Mehtab v. State of U.P.

Court No. - 88

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7687 of 2021

Applicant :- Mehtab Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhanshu Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

Learned counsel for the applicant has filed amendment application for adding Case Crime No. 84 of 2020 under section 2/3 U.P. Gangsters Act and Anti Social Activities(Preventiion) Act, Police Station Premnagar, District Bareilly, in prayer clause of Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C.

The amendment application is allowed and learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to incorporate the amendments during the course of the day.

Heard Sri Sudhanshu Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed in Case Crime No.84 of 2020 under section 2/3 U.P. Gangsters Act and Anti Social Activities(Prevention) Act, Police Station Premnagar, District Bareilly, with a prayer to direct the court below that the applicant be allowed to execute one personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned which may hold good for all seven cases concerned against the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that there are seven cases against the applicant in which bail has already been granted by the Court concerned but accused/applicant is not in a position to furnish sureties in all the cases separately i.e. on two sureties for each total 14 in number. He has relied upon on the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) Nos.8914-8915 of 2015 (Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh) by which Hon'ble Apex Court has directed for 31 cases and also the order passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11380 of 2019 (Rizwan Alias Atta vs. State of U.P.) dated 15.03.2019 in which it was directed that the applicant be allowed to execute one personal bonds with two sureties to the satisfaction of the Court concerned which hold good for 11 cases against the applicant.