Allowed

Shiv Bhagwan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Allahabad HC24 Oct 2024A482/9635/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application filed to allow the applicant to submit the same surety bonds across six criminal cases instead of separate bonds for each, due to financial constraints. The court directed the trial court to accept common surety bonds if they are competent and verified.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the court below to accept the same sureties in all six cases if they are competent and verified.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:73613

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9635 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Shiv Bhagwan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Ishan Bhasin, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to direct the learned court below not to insist the applicant to file separate surety bonds in each and every cases and accept only one surety in lieu of all the six cases.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in six cases, details of which are as under:

¶9

(i) F.I.R. No. 281 of 2024, under Sections 305(A), 331(4), 317(2) of B.N.S., P.S. Sadarpur, District Sitapur

¶10

(ii) F.I.R. No. 264 of 2024, under Sections 305(A), 331(4), 317(2) of B.N.S., P.S. Sakran, District Sitapur

¶11

(iii) F.I.R. No. 406 of 2024, under Section 331(7) of B.N.S., P.S. Biswan, District Sitapur

¶12

(iv) F.I.R. No. 293 of 2024, under Sections 305(A), 331(4), 317(2) of B.N.S., P.S. Sadarpur, District Sitapur

¶13

(v) F.I.R. No. 24 of 2024, under Sections 459, 411, 380 I.P.C., P.S. Rampur Kalan, District Sitapur

¶14

(vi) F.I.R. No. 338 of 2024, under Section 109 of B.N.S., P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Sitapur

¶15

It is submitted that the applicant has been granted bail by the court below as well as by this Court in all the cases, but furnishing of twelve sureties in six different cases is

¶16

almost impracticable as the applicant is very poor person and he will not be able to arrange 12 sureties to get bail.

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky Vs. The State of Uttar Praesh [SLP (Crl.) No.8914-8915/2018] .

¶18

Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that it is always the discretion and satisfaction of the trial court, so far as the acceptance of the sureties is concerned.

¶19

Having heard learned counsel for the rival parties, it appears that the only grievance of the applicant appears to be that, despite having obtained the order of the bail in all the cases, he is not able to come out of the prison for the reason that he is unable to find separate sureties for each case and, thus, a prayer has been made that, applicant be permitted to file same sureties in all the six cases and a suitable direction in this regard be given to the court below.

¶20

The acceptance of the sureties and their verification is the prerogative of the trial court and the same, in any case, could not be controlled by this Court. Sufficient guidelines in this regard have already been given by the High Court on administrative side to the subordinate courts. However, as far as the grievance of the applicant, pertaining to the fact that he is not in a position to arrange separate sureties for all the six cases, is concerned, the answer to this apprehension and grievance is implicit in Section 441-A of Code of Criminal Procedure, which is reproduced as under:-

¶21

"Declaration by sureties- Every person standing surety to an accused person for his release on bail, shall make a declaration before the Court as to the number of persons to whom he has stood surety including the accused, giving therein all the relevant particulars."

¶22

Perusal of this Section shows that, a person, who is intending to be the surety of any accused person, is obliged to declare before the Court that apart from the person, to whom he is standing surety, for how many other

¶23

accused persons, he has stood surety. Therefore, the texture of the Section 441-A of the Cr.P.C., which has been introduced by way of amendment made in the year 2006 clearly reflects that a person may stand surety for more than one accused person and in more than one case. So there appears no bar for a person to stand surety in more than one case and also for more than one accused person. However, as stated earlier, the status, verification and the competency of the surety will always be assessed by the trial court before acceptance.

¶24

Thus, it is directed that, if same sureties are placed before the court below and they are otherwise competent and their status and other particulars have been duly verified, the court below, in its discretion, may accept the same in all the cases mentioned hereinbefore.

¶25

With the aforesaid observations, the application is finally disposed of.

¶26

Order Date :- 7.11.2024 VKS

¶27

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shiv Bhagwan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Bhagwan 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

Manju Devi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Shatrughan Dwivedi and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Omprakash @ O.P. Rawat @ Santosh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Anuj Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Ramnewal and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Jitendra Kumar Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another