Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought a direction not to insist on separate surety bonds for five criminal cases. The court allowed a single personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 and two sureties to suffice for all five cases.
Petitioner to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 and two sureties of like amount, treated as valid in all five cases.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 13
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 957 of 2021
Applicant :- Rafeeq Ansari @ Chhotu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Salman,Mohd. Zishan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner to direct the learned Court below concerned not to insist the petitioner to file separate surety bonds in each and every five cases and accept only two sureties and one personal bond in lieu of all the five cases.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in five cases. The details of the cases are as under:-
"(1) Case Crime No. 913/2018, U/s 411/413 I.P.C, Police Station Thakurganj, District Lucknow, (2) Case Crime No. 914/2018, U/s 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station Thakurganj, District Lucknow.(3) Case Crime No. 842/2018, U/s 457/380/411 L.P.C, Police Station Thakurganj. District Lucknow (4) Case Crime No. 747/2018, U/s 380/471/411 1.P.C. Police Station Thakurganj, District Lucknow (5) Case Crime No. 910/2018, U/s 380/457/411 1.P.C. Police Station Thakurganj, District Lucknow."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in all the five cases petitioner has been enlarged on bail. He further submits that the petitioner belongs to very poor family he is unable to furnish sureties in all the cases for his release. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks the benefit of judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Hani Nishad @
Mohammad Imran @ Vikky vs. The State of U.P." passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No. 8914-8915 of 2018.
Opposing the prayer of the petitioner's counsel, learned A.G.A. for the State submits that it is always the discretion and satisfaction of the concerned trial court so far as the acceptance of the surety is concerned.
Considering the aforesaid, it is provided that the petitioner may furnish a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of the like amount which shall be treated to be valid in all five cases above mentioned in which the bail orders have been passed.
With these observations, the petition is disposed of .
Order Date :- 24.2.2022
Madhu
Digitally signed by MADHU KUMARI Date: 2022.03.02 13:38:38 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can be required to file separate surety bonds for all five cases or if a single personal bond with two sureties suffices.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky vs. The State of U.P.Referred¶9
Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky vs. The State of U.P.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rafeeq Ansari @ Chhotu
Karunesh Singh Pawar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
