Partly allowed

Faiji Khan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Nov 2024A482/26690/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 CrPC, the Allahabad High Court held that demanding multiple sureties across four separate bail cases is unreasonable due to the applicant's financial crisis. The court directed the trial court to treat the sureties provided for one case as sufficient for the others, enabling the applicant's release.

What did the court decide?

The trial court is directed to release the applicant by treating the sureties for Case Crime No.106 of 2022 as sureties for the other three cases.

Faiji Khan Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:174877

¶2

Court No. - 78

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26690 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Faiji Khan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent, and perused material on record.

¶7

By means of the present application, the applicant has sought for a suitable direction to the learned trial court to consider sureties and personal bond of one case for all the four cases, in which the applicant has been granted bail.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been enlarged on bail by the trial court in four cases; (i) vide order dated 9.1.2024 in Case Crime No.106 of 2022, under Sections 379, 411 IPC, P.S. Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur Nagar on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court, (ii) vide order dated 12.1.2024 in Case Crime No.166 of 2024, under Section 379, 411 IPC, P.S. Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur Nagar on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court, (iii) vide order dated 16.11.2023 in Case Crime No.0166 of 2022, under Sections 379, 411, 413, 420 IPC, P.S. Nazirabad, District Kanpur Nagar on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court, (iv) vide order dated 7.7.2023 in Case Crime No.03 of 2023, under Sections 465, 471, 413 IPC, P.S.

¶9

Harbansh Mohal, Kanpur Nagar on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court, whereas in one case i.e. Case Crime No.53 of 2023, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters and AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. Swaroop Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar, the applicant has been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.3.2024.

¶10

This Court cannot interfere with the order dated 18.3.2024 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court enlarging the applicant on bail, therefore, in this regard, the applicant would be at liberty to take appropriate remedy before the competent Court.

¶11

So far as the bail orders passed by the learned trial court are concerned, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the trial court has directed the applicant to file separate personal bonds and two sureties for each case, however, the applicant has not been set at liberty as he is unable to arrange the sureties in aforesaid cases due to financial crisis and lack of human resources. The applicant has been languishing in jail since 9.1.2023.

¶12

The prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant may be permitted to produce a single surety for the aforesaid four cases, in which the applicant has been enlarged on bail by the learned trial court, so that he could be set at liberty in pursuance of the bail orders.

¶13

Per-contra, learned A.G.A. contends that sureties serve an important role in securing presence of accused before the court, but fairly admits that sureties should be just and reasonable.

¶14

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant

¶15

and the law in this regard, this Court finds that the requirement of multiple sureties is unreasonable in the facts-circumstances of the instant case.

¶16

The right of fundamental liberties of the applicant is being curtailed on account of his poverty and inability to arrange multiple sureties for cases instituted against him.

¶17

The trial court is directed to release the applicant by treating the sureties for Case Crime No.106 of 2022, under Sections 379, 411 IPC, P.S. Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur Nagar, as sureties for all the aforesaid three cases, the court may press for personal bond of applicant in all the cases, separately.

¶18

With the aforesaid observations the application is disposed of.

¶19

Order Date :- 7.11.2024 Anil K. Sharma

¶20

Justice Vinod Diwakar

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Faiji Khan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Faiji Khan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases