Allowed

Ajay Sahu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC4 Oct 2024A482/9155/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of the applicant's application under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS to furnish sureties. Relying on Hani Nishad vs. State of U.P., the Court directed the trial court to execute a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 and accept two sureties, holding them good for all cases thought the applicant is a poor person unable to furnish huge sureties.

What did the court decide?

The trial court is directed to execute a personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- in every case and produce two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court/Magistrate concerned in one case.

Ajay Sahu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:68760

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9155 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ajay Sahu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (in short "BNSS") has been filed by the applicant to permit him to submit two sureties and one personal bond for all five cases from the applicant and applicant has been granted bail in all cases by the court below.

¶8

It is stated that earlier the applicant approached this Court by means of APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 8296 of 2024 (Ajay Sahu Vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.) for the similar relief as sought in the present application.

¶9

It is further submitted that in the said application, the sections could not indicated correctly and at the time of disposal of the same, the same could not be pointed out and therefore, the said application was disposed of vide order dated 17.09.2024 indicating therein incorrect sections and as such in the aforesaid background of the case, the present application has been filed.

¶10

The order dated 17.09.2024 passed in APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 8296 of 2024 reads as under:

¶11

"Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶12

The instant application has been filed by the applicant to permit him to submit two sureties and personal bond in all five cases in which he was roped only one arrest and applicant has been granted bail in all cases by the competent courts. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in five cases. He next submitted that in all the cases registered against the applicant, he has been granted bail by the

¶13

competent courts. He says that the applicant is a very poor person and not in a position to furnish huge sureties in each and every case in compliance of bail orders. It is further submitted that the details of cases registered against applicant at District-Ayodhya are as follows:-

¶14

i) Case Crime No. 283/2024 under section 411/413 IPC Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Ayodhya.

¶15

ii) Case Crime No. 323/2024 under section 380 IPC, police station Kotwali Nagar, District Faizabad/Ayodhya.

¶16

iii) Case Crime No. 319/2024 under section 380 IPC, police station Kotwali Nagar, District Faizabad/Ayodhya.

¶17

iv) Case crime no. 338/2024, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, Ayodhya.

¶18

v)Case Crime no. 169/2024 Under Sections - 411/413 IPC Police station- Kotwali Cantt District- Ayodhya/Faizabad.

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 89148915 of 2018; Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky Vs. State of U.P.

¶20

Learned A.G.A. submits that he does not want to file any counter affidavit.

¶21

In view of the facts and circumstances as well as rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties, the present application stands disposed of finally in the light law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky (Supra) and the Court below is directed to execute the personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- in every case and produce two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court/Magistrate concerned in one case which shall hold good for rest of the cases."

¶22

Considered the aforesaid and perused the records.

¶23

The correct details of the cases registered against applicant in District - Ayodhya/Faizabad are as follows:-

¶24

i) Case Crime No. 283/2024 under section 411/413 IPC Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Ayodhya.

¶25

ii) Case Crime No. 323/2024 under section 411, 413 IPC, police station Kotwali Nagar, District Faizabad/Ayodhya.

¶26

iii) Case Crime No. 319/2024 under section 411, 413 IPC, police station Kotwali Nagar, District Faizabad/Ayodhya.

¶27

iv) Case crime no. 338/2024, under Sections 399, 402 IPC Police Station Kotwali Nagar, Ayodhya.

¶28

v)Case Crime no. 169/2024 Under Sections - 411/413 IPC Police station- Kotwali Cantt District- Ayodhya/Faizabad.

¶29

In view of the facts and circumstances, the present application under Section 528 BNSS stands disposed of finally in the light law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky (Supra) and the trial Court is directed to execute the personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- in every case and produce two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court/Magistrate concerned in one case which shall hold good for rest of the cases. Order Date :- 4.10.2024 Mohit Singh/-

¶30

Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ajay Sahu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Sahu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Deenanath Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ram Sajeewan and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Sanjay Sharma and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Rajesh Kumar Srivastava vs Additional District Judge /Special Judge P.C. Act Court No. 5, Lucknow and 8 Others

Neeraj Agrawal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Vivek Yadav @ Sumit @ Sonu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.