Disposed

Umesh Lonia Thru. His Mamiya Sasur (Father-in-Law) Sumer Chndra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC25 Sept 2024A227/4567/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 227, the petitioner sought permission to file the same surety bonds in five pending criminal cases instead of separate bonds for each. The court held that no statutory bar exists, permitting trial courts to accept common sureties if the sureties are competent and verified.

What did the court decide?

It is directed that if same sureties are placed and duly verified, the trial court may accept them in all 05 cases pending before it, having regard to the ratio in Hani Nishad.

Umesh Lonia Thru. His Mamiya Sasur (Father-in-Law) Sumer… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:66396

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4567 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Umesh Lonia Thru. His Mamiya Sasur (Father-InLaw) Sumer Chndra Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 5 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Yadav,Devansh Singh Chauhan

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

The instant petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Umesh Lonia with a prayer to direct the learned court below not to insist the petitioner 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.

¶10

The petitioner has stated to be involved in following 05 cases and obtained bail orders:

¶11

"1. Case Crime No. 0056 of 2020, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Ramnagar, District Barabanki.

¶12

2. Case Crime No. 230 of 2020, under Sections 457 and 380 I.P.C., Police Station Masauli, District Barabanki.

¶13

3. Case Crime No.112/2020, under Section 457 and 380 I.P.C., Police Station Ramnagar, District Barabanki.

¶14

4. Case Crime No. 433 of 2020, under Section 457 and 380 I.P.C., Police Station Ramnagar, District Barabanki.

¶15

5. Case Crime No.0166 of 2020, under Section 457 and 380 I.P.C., Police Station Badosaray, District Barabanki."

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that above mentioned 05 false cases were registered against the petitioner and in all the cases, the petitioner has been directed to be released on bail by the competent Courts, however, the petitioner is having every apprehension that, if the same sureties

¶17

will be placed in all the 05 cases pending before the trial Court, the same would not be accepted and despite the petitioner has been directed to be released on bail, he will not come out of the prison, because he will not be in a position to arrange two separate sureties for each case. Therefore, it is submitted that, the trial Court be directed to permit the accused-petitioner to file same sureties in all the 05 cases.

¶18

Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, on the ground that, it is always the discretion and satisfaction of the trial court, so far as, the acceptance of the sureties is concerned.

¶19

Having heard learned counsel for the rival parties, it appears that the only grievance of the petitioner appears to be that, he despite has obtained the orders of bail in all the 05 cases is not able to come out of the prison, because he is not able to find separate sureties for each case, and a prayer has been made that, he be permitted to file same sureties in all the 05 cases and a suitable direction in this regard be given to the trial court.

¶20

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 petitioner, pertaining to the fact that, he is not in a position to arrange separate sureties for all the 05 cases is concerned, the answer to this apprehension and grievance is implicit in Section 441-A of Code of Criminal Procedure (Now Section 486 of B.N.S.S. 2023, which is reproduced as under:-

¶21

"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."

¶22

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

¶23

Therefore, the texture of the Section 441-A of the Cr.P.C. (Now Section 486 of B.N.S.S. 2023), which has been introduced by way of amendment made in the year 2006 and in B.N.S.S. clearly reflects that, a person may stand surety for

¶24

more than one accused person and 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.

¶25

Thus, it is directed that if same sureties are placed by the petitioner in all the 05 cases pending before the trial court and they are otherwise competent and their status and other particulars have been duly verified, the trial court in its discretion may accept the same in all the 05 cases.

¶26

It is also provided that while making a decision with regard to the acceptance of the sureties as directed above, the Magistrate or the trial Court would have due regard to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in order dated 29.10.2018 passed in Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky Vs. State of U.P., Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 8914-8915 of 2018 .

¶27

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

¶28

Order Date :- 25.9.2024 Praveen

¶29

Digitally signed by :- PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Umesh Lonia Thru. His Mamiya Sasur (Father-in-Law) Sumer Chndra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Lonia Thru. His Mamiya Sasur (Father-in-Law) Sumer Chndra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 5 Others

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

Chandra Kumari Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mumtaj Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and Another

Pavan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Mohd. Sahbaj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Raja Ram Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Suresh Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others