Amit Agarwal @ Amit Kumar Agarwal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:60488

Court No. - 13 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8079 of 2023 Applicant :- Amit Agarwal @ Amit Kumar Agarwal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Riyaz Ahmad,Hemant Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶4

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

¶5

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed with a prayer to direct the learned court below not to insist the applicant to file separate surety bonds in all the five criminal cases and to accept the same sureties in lieu of all the five cases mentioned below.

¶6

The applicant has stated to be involved in following five cases and obtained bail orders:

¶7

1. Crime No. 203 of 2022, under Sections 406, 409, 420 I.P.C., Police Station Chowk, District Lucknow.

¶8

2. Crime No. 204 of 2022, under Sections 406, 409, 420 I.P.C., Police Station Chowk, District Lucknow.

¶9

3. Crime No. 205 of 2022, under Sections 406, 409, 420 I.P.C., Police Station Chowk, District Lucknow.

¶10

4. Crime No. 206 of 2022, under Sections 406, 409, 420 I.P.C., Police Station Chowk, District Lucknow.

¶11

5. Crime No. 207 of 2022, under Sections 406, 409, 420 I.P.C., Police Station Chowk, District Lucknow.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that above mentioned five false cases were registered with regard to the car of the son of the applicant and in all the cases, the 'Kia Seltos Car' bearing Registration No. U.P. 32 MD 7098 has been directed to be released by the competent Courts on furnishing a single surety of 17 lacs, however, the applicant is having every apprehension that, if the same surety will be placed in all the five cases pending before the trial Court, the same would not be accepted and despite the car of the son of the applicant has been directed to be released, it will not be released in his favour, because he will not be in a position to arrange separate surety for each case. Therefore, it is submitted that, the trial Court be directed to permit the accused-applicant to file same surety in all the five cases.

¶13

Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the contention of learned counsel for the applicant, on the ground that, it is always the discretion and

¶14

satisfaction of the trial court, so far as, the acceptance of the sureties is concerned.

¶15

Having heard learned counsel for the rival parties, it appears that the only grievance of the applicant appears to be that, despite the orders of release of car of his son have been obtained in all the five cases is not able to get it released as he is not able to find separate surety for each case, and a prayer has been made that, he be permitted to file same surety in all the five cases and a suitable direction in this regard be given to the trial courts.

¶16

The acceptance of the sureties and the verification of them 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 passed 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 surety for all the five 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:-

¶17

"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."

¶18

Perusal of this Section shows that, a person who is intending to be the surety of any accused person or property is obliged to declare before the Court that apart from the person or property to whom he is standing surety, for how many other accused persons or property, he had stood surety.

¶19

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 in more than one case. So there appears no bar for a person to stand surety in more than 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.

¶20

Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the specific fact that the same vehicle is detained in five different criminal cases, it is directed that one single surety of Rs. 17 lacs may be filed by the applicant in all the five criminal cases and the same may be accepted by the trial Court in all the abovementioned cases.

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 3.9.2024/Mohit Singh/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Amit Agarwal @ Amit Kumar Agarwal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Agarwal @ Amit Kumar Agarwal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko and 2 Others

Smt. Neelam Kumari Alias Neelam Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Mithlesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Thru. S.H.O., Lko. and Another

Ashfaq Hussain and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Others

Ram Kumar and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Dept. Lko and Another

Mohd. Saif vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another