Allowed

Mohd. Jaid v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Allahabad HC31 Oct 2023/8967/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the court examined the grievance of the applicant who could not produce separate sureties for eight distinct bail cases due to his financial constraints. Relying on the text of Section 441-A Cr.P.C. and the judgment of Hani Nishad, the court held that the law permits a single person to stand as surety for an accused in multiple cases, provided their c

What did the court decide?

Directed that the court below may accept the same sureties in all eight cases if the sureties are competent and their status has been duly verified.

Mohd. Jaid Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:71511

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8967 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Mohd. Jaid Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Vikas Vikram Singh,Syed Mehfuzur Rehman Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to direct the learned court below not to insist the applicant to file separate surety bonds in each and every cases and accept only one surety in lieu of all the three cases.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in three cases, details of which are as under:

¶9

(i) Case Crime No. 322 of 2020, under Sections 406, 420 I.P.C., P.S. Vikas Nagar, District Lucknow

¶10

(ii) Case Crime No. 109 of 2020, under Sections 406, 420 I.P.C., P.S. Vikas Nagar, District Lucknow

¶11

(iii) Case Crime No. 69 of 2021, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., P.S. Vikas Nagar, District Lucknow

¶12

(iv) Case Crime No. 16 of 2021, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., P.S. Vikas Nagar, District Lucknow

¶13

(v) Case Crime No. 10 of 2021, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., P.S. Vikas Nagar, District Lucknow

¶14

(vi) Case Crime No. 06 of 2021, under Sections 406, 420, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Vikas Nagar, District Lucknow

¶15

(vii) Case Crime No. 37 of 2021, under Sections 406, 420, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Gudamba, District Lucknow

¶16

(viii) Case Crime No. 116 of 2019, under Sections 406, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Vikas Nagar, District Lucknow

¶17

It is submitted that the applicant has been granted bail by the court below as well as by this Court in all the cases, but

¶18

furnishing of 16 sureties in eight different cases is almost impracticable as the applicant is very poor person and he will not be able to arrange 16 sureties to get bail.

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky Vs. The State of Uttar Praesh [SLP (Crl.) No.8914-8915/2018] .

¶20

Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that it is always the discretion and satisfaction of the trial court, so far as the acceptance of the sureties is concerned.

¶21

Having heard learned counsel for the rival parties, it appears that the only grievance of the applicant appears to be that, despite having obtained the order of the bail in all the cases, he is not able to come out of the prison for the reason that he is unable to find separate sureties for each case and, thus, a prayer has been made that, applicant be permitted to file same sureties in all the eight cases and a suitable direction in this regard be given to the court below.

¶22

The acceptance of the sureties and their verification is the prerogative of the trial court and the same, in any case, could not be controlled by this Court. Sufficient guidelines in this regard have already been given by the High Court on administrative side to the subordinate courts. However, as far as the grievance of the applicant, pertaining to the fact that he is not in a position to arrange separate sureties for all the eight cases, is concerned, the answer to this apprehension and grievance is implicit in Section 441-A of Code of Criminal Procedure, which is reproduced as under:-

¶23

"Declaration by sureties- Every person standing surety to an accused person for his release on bail, shall make a declaration before the Court as to the number of persons to whom he has stood surety including the accused, giving therein all the relevant particulars."

¶24

Perusal of this Section shows that, a person, who is intending to be the surety of any accused person, is obliged to declare before the Court that apart from the person, to whom he is standing surety, for how many other accused persons, he has stood surety. Therefore, the texture of the Section 441-A of the Cr.P.C., which has been introduced by way of amendment made in the year 2006 clearly reflects that a person may stand surety for more than one accused person and in more than one case. So there appears no bar for a person to stand surety in more than

¶25

one case and also for more than one accused person. However, as stated earlier, the status, verification and the competency of the surety will always be assessed by the trial court before acceptance.

¶26

Thus, it is directed that, if same sureties are placed before the court below and they are otherwise competent and their status and other particulars have been duly verified, the court below, in its discretion, may accept the same in all the cases mentioned herein-before.

¶27

With the aforesaid observations, the application is finally disposed of .

¶28

Order Date :- 31.10.2023 Ashutosh Pandey

¶29

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Jaid v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Jaid v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

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

Virendra Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. of Home Deptt. Civil Secrtt. Lko. and Another

Kaleem Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Sri Krishna Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Jitendra Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.Home Lko

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

Lalit Kumar Sahu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 2 Others