Disposed

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

Allahabad HC7 Mar 2024A482/2197/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application seeking relaxation of bail conditions. The court directed the applicant to file personal bonds in all cases, treating two sureties filed in one case as sufficient for all other cases where bail was granted. This addresses the shortage of available sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to file personal bonds and two sureties in one case, valid for all other 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

Statutes considered

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

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

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