This judgment reduces the bail bond and surety amounts imposed on the applicant across five criminal cases, considering his poverty and family's occupation, citing Supreme Court precedents to prevent excessive detention.
Directed the applicant to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 and two sureties of Rs. 5,000 each 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. - 92
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7188 of 2022
Applicant :- Rafiqul Sheikh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Diwakar Srivastava,Sanjai Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
The present petition has been filed by the applicant / petitioner for issuance of direction to the Court below to accept the one personal bond and two sureties for the all five bail orders dated 16.11.021, in five case crime numbers i.e. in Case Crime No.7 of 2020, under Section 380, 411 IPC, P.S. GRP, Allahabad, District - Allahabad, in Case Crime No.11 of 2021, P.S. GRP, Allahabad, District Allahabad, under Section 380, 411 IPC, in Case Crime No.68 of 2021, P.S. GRP, Allahabad, District - Allahabad, u/s 379, 411 IPC, in Case Crime No.79 of 2021, P.S. GRP, Allahabad, District - Allahabad, u/s 380, 411 I.P.C and in Case Crime No. 85 of 2021, GRP, Allahabad, District - Allahabad, u/s 380, 411 414 IPC, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Railway, Allahabad, District - Allahabad.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is decided at this stage itself.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in pursuance of memo dated 21.05.2021 an F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant and a case Crime 85 of 2021 has been registered and after that the applicant has also made accused in 4 other cases in which FIRs were lodged against unknown persons. It is further submitted that all the five cases as mentioned above were listed before the court below on the
same date i.e. 16.11.2021 and in all the five cases bail has been granted to the applicant on providing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of the same amount in each case.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that as per admitted and undisputed case of the prosecution that the applicant in his statement before the police had admitted that he used to commit petty theft in the train and his father is a trolley puller in the city, despite this fact while granting bail such a harsh condition has been imposed which is not possible either for the applicant or for his family members to fulfill as they are very poor and they belong to a labour class and somehow manage their livelihood.
It is further submitted that in Section 440 Cr.P.C. it has been provided that the amount of every bond executed under this Chapter shall be fixed with due regard to the circumstances of the case and shall not be excessive, and sub- section 2 of Section 440 Cr.P.C. provides that High Court or Court of Session may direct that the bail required by a police officer or Magistrate be reduced. In support of the submissions, learned counsel for the applicant has also relied on the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hussainara Khatoon and others vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar , reported in (1980) 1 SCC page 81.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that as per instruction of his client, he is ready to comply the conditions imposed by the court below in one case and the same shall be accepted in all other four cases.
On the other hands, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant/ petitioner but he is unable to dispute the submission raised by learned counsel for the applicant.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties; going through the record and judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court, it is found that the applicant as per his statement before the police where he has admitted that he is a petty thief at railway station and his father is a trolley puller and they are very poor and it is not possible for them to fulfill the conditions imposed by the trial court at the time of granting bails to the applicant. The applicant has been granted bail on 16.11.2021 but his family has failed to manage personal bond of Rs.50,000 and two sureties of same amount in all the five cases as one of the conditions imposed by the trial court for release of applicant from jail. The applicant is in incarceration since 16.11.2021 and more than 4 months have been passed. The judgement relied by the learned counsel for the applicant in the Case of Hussainara Khatoon and others vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar , reported in (1980) 1 SCC page 81 and and Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky Vs. The State of Uttar Praesh reported in [SLP (Crl.) No.8914-8915/2018] , wherein the Hon'ble Apex court has held that courts mechanically and as a matter of course insist that the accused should produce sureties who will stand bail for him and these sureties must again establish their solvency to be able to pay up the amount of the bail in case the accused fails to appear to answer the charge, and by imposing exorbitant and excessive amount is nothing but amounts of denial of bail, which infringes the right / liberty of the accused and he has unnecessarily been detained in jail in absence of any sentence passed against him. In the present case it is an undisputed and admitted fact that applicant used to make petty theft and his father is a trolley puller, the personal bonds of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties of same amount for each case imposed against the applicant for release on bail is excessive and also against section 440 Cr.P.C.
As per the discussion made hereinabove, the statutory provision and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, applicant is directed to furnish personal bond of Rs.10,000/- and two sureties of Rs.5000/- each in all the five cases i.e. Case Crime No.7 of 2020, Case Crime No.11 of 2021, Case Crime No.68 of 2021, Case Crime No.79 of 2021 and Case Crime No. 85 of 2021 all relating to P.S. GRP, Allahabad,District Allahabad, to the satisfaction of the court below.
With the observation made hereinabove, the petition is disposed of.
Order date: 28.03.2022 S.Kumar
Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR Date: 2022.03.30 18:14:59 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the bail bonds and surety amounts imposed by the trial court are excessive under Section 440 Cr.P.C. given the applicant's financial status?
Whether the applicant is entitled to a reduction in bail conditions under the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hussainara Khatoon and others vs. Home Secretary, State of BiharRelied on¶10
(1980) 1 SCC page 81 · Who else cites this
Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky Vs. The State of Uttar PraeshRelied on¶13
[SLP (Crl.) No.8914-8915/2018]
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Rafiqul Sheikh
State of U.P.
Manish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
