Allowed

Arif @ Pirri v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2024A482/41245/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge division bench allowed the applicant's bail application granting a direction to the trial court for his release on personal bonds. The court directed that common sureties could satisfy the surety requirement for all 12 charges, preventing incarceration due to inability to arrange multiple sets of sureties.

What did the court decide?

Direction to trial court to release the applicant on furnishing personal bonds for all 12 cases with only two common sureties to the satisfaction of the court.

Arif @ Pirri vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:189794

¶2

Court No. - 78

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41245 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Arif @ Pirri Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Adesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,G.K. Srivastava

¶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 from this Court to the learned trial court to consider two sureties and a personal bond to hold good for all 12 cases in which the applicant has granted bail by the Courts.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been enlarged on bail by the Courts in cases outlined herein; (i) in Case No.88 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC and Section 3/25/27/4 Arms Act, P.S. Meerapur, District Muzaffarnagar, on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount, (ii) in Case Crime No.2149 of 2023, under Sections 136, 137 Indian Electricity Act, P.S. Anti Power Theft, District Muzaffarnagar, on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount, (iii) in Case Crime No.1742 of 2023, under Sections 136, 137 Indian Electricity Act, P.S. Anti Power Theft, District Muzaffarnagar, on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount, (iv) in Case Crime No.61 of 2023, under Sections 136,

¶9

137 Indian Electricity Act and Section 379, 411 IPC, P.S. Meerapur, District Muzaffarnagar, on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount, (v) in Case Crime No.78 of 2023, under Sections 136, 137 Indian Electricity Act and Section 379, 411 IPC, P.S. Meerapur, District Muzaffarnagar, on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount, (vi) in Case Crime No.1883 of 2023, under Sections 136, 137 Indian Electricity Act, P.S. Anti Power Theft, District Muzaffarnagar, on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount, (vii) in Case Crime No.1507 of 2023, under Sections 136, 137 Indian Electricity Act, P.S. Anti Power Theft, District Muzaffarnagar, on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount, (viii) in Case Crime No.5710 of 2022, under Sections 136, 137 Indian Electricity Act, P.S. Anti Power Theft, District Muzaffarnagar, on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount, (ix) in Case Crime No.80 of 2023, under Section 379 IPC, P.S. Titavi, District Muzaffarnagar, on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount, (x) in Case Crime No.95 of 2023, under Section 379 IPC, P.S. Titavi, District Muzaffarnagar, on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount, (xi) in Case Crime No.41 of 2023, under Section 379 IPC, P.S. Kakrauli, District Muzaffarnagar, on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount; further, in one case the applicant has been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the details are as follows; (xii) in Case Crime No.73 of 2024, under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti

¶10

Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. Meerapur, District Muzaffarnagar. However, the applicant could not be set at liberty as he is unable to arrange the sureties in aforesaid cases due to lack of financial and human resources. The applicant has been languishing in jail, depriving fundamental rights to life and personal liberty, and relied upon Ramchandra Thangappan Aachari v. State of Maharashtra reported as 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2629 and a judgment passed by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court titled as Jagdish Arora v. Union of India , passed in MCRC No.4923 of 2022.

¶11

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

¶12

The Supreme Court in Ramchandra Thangappan Aachari (supra) has held that it would be a travesty of justice if the petitioner is unable to secure the benefit of a bail order for his inability to furnish local surety. This will infringe the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution for the person who continues to be detained despite a bail order in his favour. The Division Bench of the High Court in Jagdish Arora (supra) is of the view that the power of amending or deleting any condition imposed by the Court under Section 439(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. has not been expressly provided in Cr.P.C. Therefore, the only course for seeking and granting modification/deletion of such condition is by invoking the inherent powers of the Court vested under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure the end of justice. The object behind bestowing the inherent power of this Court is to do complete justice and to prevent miscarriage of justice.

¶13

Thus, the applicant's fundamental right to personal liberty cannot be curtailed on account of his poverty and inability to arrange multiple sureties to secure release from jail despite having bail orders in his favour.

¶14

Therefore, the trial court is directed to release the applicant on furnishing the personal bonds for each case and two sureties to the satisfaction of the Court concerned for 12 cases. For clarity, if the applicant furnishes personal bonds against each case to the satisfaction of the trial court and two sureties against any of the cases referred herein above, he shall be released in all 12 cases. The trial Court shall not press for separate sureties for each case to release the applicant in compliance of bail orders.

¶15

With the aforesaid observations the application is allowed and decided accordingly.

¶16

Order Date :- 3.12.2024 A. Tripathi

¶17

Justice Vinod Diwakar

¶18

Digitally signed by :- AKHILESH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Arif @ Pirri v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arif @ Pirri 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nasrin and Another vs State of Up and 3 Others

Mrs. Asama Bano and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anjali Chaudhary and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jainab and Another vs State of Up and 3 Others

Lal Ratnakar Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Adarsh vs State of U.P.