Allowed

Ram Nath Mishra @ Rmanath Mishra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Jun 2023A482/17250/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. directing courts to accept a common personal bond and two common sureties for the applicant across eight criminal cases. This decision relied on a Supreme Court order permitting common bonds where separate surety bonds are impractical.

What did the court decide?

Direction to courts to accept a common personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two common sureties of Rs. 25,000/- valid for all eight cases.

Ram Nath Mishra @ Rmanath Mishra Vs State of U.P. — Arbitration | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:126538

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17250 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ram Nath Mishra @ Rmanath Mishra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Navaneet Kumar Shukla,Nitin Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to allow this application and direct the court concerned to accept a common personal bail bond as well as common sureties for the bails granted in eight cases.

¶8

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is involved in eight criminal cases for various offences. The bail has been granted in all the eight cases but the applicant is unable to manage the separate surety bonds, hence, he could not submit his bail bonds in all the four 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 eight cases.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has indicated the details of the aforesaid eight cases in the memo of application as under:-

¶10

(1) Case Crime No. 1484 of 2021, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Kavi Nagar, DistrictGhaziabad.

¶11

(2) Case Crime No. 1651 of 2021, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 409, 120-B, I.P.C., Police Station-Kavi Nagar, DistrictGhaziabad.

¶12

(3) Case Crime No. 875 of 2021, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali, District-Ghaziabad.

¶13

(4) Case Crime No. 893 of 2021, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali, District-Ghaziabad.

¶14

(5) Case Crime No. 922 of 2021, under Section 2/3 Gangster Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Ghaziabad.

¶15

(6) Case Crime No. 2009 of 2021, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station-Indirapuram, District Ghaziabad.

¶16

(7) Case Crime No. 113 of 2021, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Kavi Nagar, District Ghaziabad.

¶17

(8) Case Crime No. 303 of 2022, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali, District Ghaziabad.

¶18

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). 89148915 of 2018 has 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:

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

Considering the submissions, the impugned order is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees

¶26

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.

¶27

With these observations, the Special Leave Petitions are disposed of.

¶28

Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of."

¶29

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

¶30

Accordingly, the application is disposed of and it is provided that the applicant shall furnish a personal bond for Rs. 25,000/- and the same personal bond shall hold good for all eight cases. There shall be two sureties who shall execute the bond for Rs. 25,000/- which bond shall hold good for all the eight 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 eight cases. If this is done, the said personal bond and two sureties may be treated to be valid in all other cases wherein he has been released on bail and the same shall be deemed to be adequate compliance of all other bail orders.

¶31

Order Date :- 14.6.2023 Puspendra

¶32

Digitally signed by :- PUSPENDRA NARAYAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Nath Mishra @ Rmanath Mishra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Nath Mishra @ Rmanath Mishra 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

Abrar Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Rajani Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Vinay and Another Vs State of U.P.

Talib Alias Bablu Vs State of U.P.

Santosh Alias Satish Vs State of U.P.

Golu @ Lavkesh Vs State of U.P.