Disposed

Jai Prakash Prajapati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Allahabad HC12 Jan 2024/249/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the court relaxed the condition of requiring multiple sureties. The applicant, facing a shortage of sureties across 52 cases, was permitted to execute a single personal bond and one bond with two sureties, both applicable to all 52 cases.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was directed to execute a personal bond of Rs. 5,00,000/- and a surety bond of Rs. 2,50,000/- by two sureties, the same to hold good for all 52 cases.

Jai Prakash Prajapati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:3590

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 249 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Jai Prakash Prajapati

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

¶6

Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Singh,Sudhir Kumar

¶7

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶8

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶9

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

¶10

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 three cases in which he has already been bailed out.

¶11

It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that against the petitioner/ applicant there are 52 cases in which he has already been granted bail, but because of non-availability of about 104 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.

¶12

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.

¶13

In view of the above circumstances, this petition is disposed of finally.

¶14

Considering the fact that there are total 52 cases wherein the petitioner has been granted bail, therefore, the petitioner shall execute a personal bond of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs only) and the same bond shall hold good for all 52 cases. There

¶15

shall be two sureties who shall execute the bond of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Fifty Thousand only) which bond shall hold good for all the 52 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 52 cases.

¶16

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.]

¶17

Order Date :- 12.1.2024/Om

¶18

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

Jai Prakash Prajapati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Prakash Prajapati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Milan Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and 3 Others

Anwar Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Dayashankar (in Charge Sheet Dayashankar Modanwal) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Another

Anil Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Raju Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Home Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Mohd Meraj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko and Another