Disposed

Pankaj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Allahabad HC16 Jan 2024A482/316/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 CrPC sought to relax bail conditions in seven cases by allowing two sureties to serve as adequate guarantee for all. The Court, relying on Supreme Court precedent, permitted the petitioner to file personal bonds and two sureties of specified amounts, valid across all cases.

What did the court decide?

Relaxed bail conditions; permitted personal bonds of Rs. 1,00,000/- and two sureties each in like amount to be valid in all seven cases.

Pankaj Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:4245

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 316 of 2024 Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Amol Kumar Srivastava,Pawan Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶5

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

¶6

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.

¶7

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

¶8

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.

¶9

In view of the above circumstances, this petition is disposed of finally in the light of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky (supra) and the court below is directed to execute the personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- in every case and produce two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned which shall be treated valid in all other cases wherein bail has been granted.

¶10

Order Date :- 16.1.2024/Om

¶11

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

Pankaj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

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

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

Gurudeen Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Brij Ballabh Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home and Another

Pankaj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.