Disposed

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

Allahabad HC4 Oct 2024A482/9157/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application under Section 528 BNSS read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant, already granted bail by the trial court in four cases, sought permission to provide one personal bond and two sureties instead of higher amounts. The court referred the Apex Court judgment in Hani Nishad and directed the trial court to accept a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 along with two sureties in the sa

What did the court decide?

The trial court is directed to execute a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 and produce two sureties in the like amount for all four cases.

Neeraj Agrawal vs State of U.P. Thru… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:68973

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9157 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Neeraj Agrawal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Hari Kant 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 four cases from the applicant and applicant has been granted bail in all cases by the court below.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in all four cases. He next submitted that in all the cases registered against the applicant, he has been granted bail by the trial court. He says that the applicant is 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 in District - Lucknow are as follows:-

¶9

(i) F.I.R. / Case Crime No. 122/2023, under section 418, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C., at Police Station - Qaiserbagh, District -- Lucknow.

¶10

(ii) F.I.R. / Case Crime No. 408/2023, under section 406, 420 I.P.C., at Police Station - Krishna Nagar, District - Lucknow.

¶11

(iii) F.I.R. / Case Crime No. 430/2022, under section 406, 420 I.P.C., at Police Station - Krishna Nagar, District - Lucknow.

¶12

(iv) F.I.R. / Case Crime No. 75/2024, under section 2/3 U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act 1986, at Police Station - Qaiserbagh, District - Lucknow.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 8914-8915 of 2018; Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky Vs. State of U.P.

¶14

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

¶15

In view of the facts and circumstances as well as rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C./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.

¶16

Order Date :- 4.10.2024

¶17

Mohit Singh/-

¶18

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj Agrawal 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

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

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