Disposed

Mohd. Imran @ Umesh Chaudhary @ Pintoo v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC23 Feb 2023/1830/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 CrPC, the Allahabad High Court directed the lower court to accept one personal bond and two sureties of Rs. 50,000 each in lieu of separate sureties for five pending bail cases.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the applicant to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of the like amount in one case, valid for all other cases.

Mohd. Imran @ Umesh Chaudhary @ Pintoo Vs State of U.P… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1830 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd. Imran @ Umesh Chaudhary @ Pintoo Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Saleem Ahmad Khan,Mohd.Saulat Wasim,Sanjay Kumar Saini,Sapna Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Upendra Prakash Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant, the learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

By means of the instant application, the applicant has prayed that this Court be pleased to direct the learned Court below not to insist the petitioner to file surety bond in each and every five cases and accept only two sureties in lieu of all the five cases.

¶8

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that it has become impossible for the applicant to submit surety in each of case in which he has been granted bail. He added that the applicant has been granted bail in five cases arising out of following Case Crime Numbers :-

¶9

Case Crime No. 675 of 2009, under Sections 307, 401 of the IPC, PS Talkatora, District Lucknow.

¶10

Case Crime No. 677 of 2009, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC, PS Talkatora, District Lucknow.

¶11

Case Crime No. 678 of 2009, under Sections 3/25 of the Arms Act, PS Talkatora, District Lucknow.

¶12

He next added that despite the Trial Court granted the bail, the applicant is still in jail and the applicant being poor person is unable to produce the sureties in each cases. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that in similar circumstances, namely, in the case of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh [SLP (Crl.) No.8914-8915/2018] the Supreme Court vide order dated 29.10.2018 has permitted the petitioner to submit personal bonds and two sureties of heavy amount to hold good in all the cases.

¶13

Considering the aforesaid fact, the petition is disposed off with

¶14

a direction to the applicant to furnish a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of the like amount in one case, which shall be treated to be valid in all other cases wherein the bail orders have been passed.

¶15

Order Date :- 23.2.2023 Anurag

¶16

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Imran @ Umesh Chaudhary @ Pintoo v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Imran @ Umesh Chaudhary @ Pintoo v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jai Vijay Singh @ Vikas Singh, Thru. His Father Sri Dharmendra Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Mohammad Kamal and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raja Yadav @ Virendra Kumar Thru. His Father Radhey Shyam Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Mr. Laxmikant Srivastava and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home, Lko. and Others

Arun Singh @ Arun Pratap Singh and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home and Another

Anita Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home and Another