Allowed

Sanjay Prajapati v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Apr 2023A482/12769/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court, issuing an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., directed the lower court to accept a single personal bond and two common sureties for seventeen criminal cases, following the precedent set in Hani Nishad, thereby allowing one common bail instrument. This was ordered to address the onerous condition of providing separate sureties for each of the seventeen cases where bail had already be

What did the court decide?

Directed the court below to accept one common personal bond and two sureties which shall be valid and deemed adequate compliance for all seventeen cases mentioned.

Sanjay Prajapati Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12769 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Sanjay Prajapati Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vandana Mishra,Anjul Dwivedi,Sai Girdhar

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Sai Girdhar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicant seeking a direction upon Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi to accept two sureties and one bail bond in pursuance of all the 17 bail orders, against the applicant being Case Crime Nos.110/2021, 157/2021, 187/2021, 151/2021, 158/2021, 143/2021, 159/2021, 156/2021, 155/2021, 153/2021, 145/2021, 149/2021, 164/2021, 154/2021, 288/2021, 163/2021, 144/2021, Police Station-Chetganj, District Varanasi.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is involved in seventeen criminal cases for various offences. The bail has been granted in all the seventeen cases but the applicant is unable to manage the separate surety bonds, hence, he could not submit his bail bonds in all the aforesaid cases. Therefore, he has requested that the learned court below concerned be directed to consider the sureties and personal bond in one case treating the same for all the seventeen cases.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has annexed copy of seventeen bail orders as Annexure 1 to 17 to the application.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the

¶11

judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky vs. The State of U.P. vide order dated 29th October, 2018 passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No(s). 8914-8915 of 2018 , wherein it has been directed that the learned court below to accept the sureties and personal bond in one case and treat the same for all other cases, which is quoted herein below:

¶12

"Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is said to have been involved in 31 criminal cases for various offences.

¶13

The Trial Court granted bail in all the 31 cases by different orders inter alia on condition of arranging two sureties each in all the cases.

¶14

The petitioner moved the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, contending that it was impossible for the petitioner to arrange 62 sureties.

¶15

It is the case of the petitioner that the High Court had in similar circumstances granted bail to the petitioner with two sureties of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) in the case under Gangster Act and the same sureties were to be the sureties in all other cases as well, by an order dated 21.9.2017. The petitioner was directed to execute personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- in each case.

¶16

However, by the impugned order, the High Court has modified the conditions of bail imposed by the Trial Court in the instant cases by directing the Trial Court to accept one common surety for all the cases and one surety each for the 31 cases.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the Court has granted bail to the petitioner, the petitioner is unable to execute the bail bonds because of the onerous conditions of bail imposed particularly the condition of producing 31 sureties.

¶18

Considering the submissions, the impugned order is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) and the same bond shall hold good for all 31 cases. There shall be two sureties who shall execute the bond for Rs. 30,000/- which bond shall hold good for all the 31 cases. It is clarified that the personal bond so executed by the Petitioner and the bond so executed by the two sureties shall hold good for all the 31 cases.

¶19

With these observations, the Special Leave Petitions are disposed of. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of."

¶20

Learned Additional Government Advocate has not disputed the aforesaid legal position being settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶21

In view of facts and circumstances of the case, the application is disposed of and it is provided that the applicant shall execute a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of court concerned below which bond shall hold good for all the seventeen cases. It is clarified that the personal bond so executed by the applicant and the bond so executed by the two sureties shall hold good for all seventeen cases. If this is done, the said personal bond and two sureties may be treated to be valid in all other cases wherein applicant has been released on bail and the same shall be deemed to be adequate compliance of all other bail orders.

¶22

Order Date :- 20.4.2023

¶23

Rahul.

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanjay Prajapati v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Prajapati 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

Robin Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P and Another

Arjun Raikwar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sukhvir Vs State of U.P.

Prashant Kumar Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sant Ram Vs State of U.P. and Another

Netrapal Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another