Allowed

Muralitharam v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Feb 2022A482/2647/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the order rejecting a reduction in bail sureties. Modifying the lower court's order, the Court reduced the surety amount to Rs. 1,00,000/- each and allowed it to be deposited in cash, citing coordinate judgment and related precedents on equitable bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 06.01.2022 was quashed and the order dated 03.01.2022 was modified to reduce sureties to Rs. 1,00,000/- each depositable in cash.

Muralitharam Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2647 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Muralitharam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Hemendra Pratap Singh,Sitesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Tanisha Jahangir Monir

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶5

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the order dated 06.01.2022 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh and further to modify the order dated 03.01.2022 passed by the same court thereby reducing the amount of sureties up to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- each in place of Rs. 3,00,000/- each.

¶6

It is, however, argued that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh be directed to accept the aforesaid reduced amount in cash at the time of accepting the bail bonds of the applicant in Case Crime No. 0147 of 2021 under Sections 420, 406, 411, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. Police Station Bannadevi, District Aligarh.

¶7

As per facts of the case, the present accused was bailed out by this Court by the order dated 20.12.2021 and the accused was ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to certain conditions. In compliance of this order, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh passed an order dated 03.01.2022 and ordered the accused - Muralitharan to be released on bail on furnishing two sureties of Rs. 3,00,000/each and personal bond of the same amount. The present accused is said to have moved an application before the lower court on 06.01.2022 wherein the prayer was made to reduce the amount of sureties from Rs. 3,00,000/- each to Rs. 1,00,000/each. This prayer of the applicant was rejected on the same day by the court concerned. The order in this regard is appended at page - '27' of the paper book.

¶8

Now the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved before this court to quash the order dated 06.01.2022 and modify the order dated 03.01.2022 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh and thereby reducing the amount of sureties upto the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- each. In support of the contention, learned counsel for the applicant has filed the order dated 05.01.2022 passed in case of the co-accused - Jeeva

¶9

where the coordinate bench of this Court was pleased to reduce the amount of sureties from Rs. 5,00,000/- to Rs. 1.5 lacs. On the basis of this order, it is prayed that the amount of sureties in the case of applicant be also reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/- each.

¶10

The grounds mentioned in the affidavit are that the applicant is a resident of Tamilnadu and is unable to furnish two local sureties. It is argued that the amount of sureties and personal bonds of Rs. 3,00,000/- is very huge.

¶11

It has been held by Karnataka High Court that imposing high cash as bail condition amounts to virtual denial of the bail. The attention of the Court is drawn towards judgement of Bom. High Court and Madras High Court in the cases of Sajal Kumar Mitra and others Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2011 LawSuit (Bom) 26 and Sagayam @ Devasagayam Vs. State Rep by Inspector of Police, 2017 LawSuit (Mad) 705 , whereby the concerned courts held that where the accused is unable to arrange the sureties he can be directed to deposit in cash.

¶12

On the basis of above facts, it is argued that the condition of deposit of two sureties of Rs. 3,00,000/- each is an onerous condition, which cannot be complied with by the applicant, so reducing the amount of sureties is prayed.

¶13

Learned counsel for the opposite party has opposed the application on the ground that the amount involved in the dispute is Rs. 6.5 crores. The main accused has got an order from the Apex Court and the proceedings of the case are stayed.

¶14

As the amount of sureties is fixed to Rs. 3,00,000/- each by the lower court and in the case of co-accused also the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was fixed for the sureties and the same has been reduced, therefore, in my opinion the case of present accused is same and the present application deserves to be allowed.

¶15

The order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh dated 06.01.2022 is hereby quashed. The order dated 03.01.2022 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh is modified to the extent that the amount of sureties of Rs. 3,00,000/- is reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/- each which can be deposited in cash.

¶16

The application is, therefore, allowed .

¶17

Order Date :- 9.2.2022 gp

¶18

Digitally signed by GANESH PRAKASH Date: 2022.02.11 17:32:14 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Muralitharam v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muralitharam v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gyan Chand and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Anil Kumar Nishad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P and Another

Anuradha Singh @ Annu Singh and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rais Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Saurabh and Another Vs State of U.P and Another

Vijay Vs State of U.P.