Disposed

Sushil Rathaur v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Allahabad HC7 Mar 2024/2197/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner bailed out in four criminal cases sought relaxation of surety conditions as he could not procure about eight sureties. Relying on a Supreme Court order and similar High Court orders, the court allowed two sureties furnished in one case to be treated valid in all cases where bail was granted.

What did the court decide?

Two sureties in one case treated valid in all other bailed-out cases; personal bonds to be filed in all cases.

Sushil Rathaur Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:20603

¶2

Court No. - 11 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2197 of 2024 Applicant :- Sushil Rathaur Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶5

By means this petition, the petitioner has prayed to relax the condition of bail to the extent that accused applicant be allowed to file two sureties in any case and the same shall be treated adequate in all the cases in which he has already been bailed out.

¶6

It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that against the petitioner/ applicant there are four cases as indicated in para no. 10 in the petition in which he has already been granted bail, but because of non-availability of about eight sureties, he is unable to file bail bonds, therefore, in this regard a prayer has been made that the petitioner/ applicant may be permitted to file two sureties in all the cases. It is also stated that in similarly situated matters, this Court has granted relief.

¶7

It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner 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 Hon'ble Apex 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. Similarly, orders have been passed by a coordinate bench of this Court as well and one of such orders in Writ Petition (MS) No. 30481 of 2018 (Imran Vs. State of U.P.) decided on 16.11.2018, has also been filed.

¶8

In view of the above circumstances, this petition is disposed of finally with a direction that petitioner shall file personal bonds in all the cases, however, two sureties in one case shall be furnished to the satisfaction of the Court concerned which shall be treated valid in all other cases wherein bail has been granted.

¶9

Order Date :- 7.3.2024 Om

¶10

Digitally signed by :- OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sushil Rathaur v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Rathaur v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kesari and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Irrigation and Water Resourses Civil Sectt. Lko and 2 Others

Chandu Musalman vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohd. Taufiq Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Smt. Neelam Vs Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fast Track Court 1ST, Ambedkar Nagar

Raj Kashyap Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.