Disposed

Shivam Vishwakarma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Allahabad HC5 Nov 2024NA528/51/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court addressed an application seeking permission to use the same two sureties across eight bail cases to avoid financial hardship, ruling that trial courts may accept shared sureties if verification confirms their competency.

What did the court decide?

Directed the trial court to accept the same sureties in all eight cases if they are competent and duly verified.

Shivam Vishwakarma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:73136

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 51 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Shivam Vishwakarma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Mradul Kumar Tiwari,Ravindra Nath Tiwari,Saurabh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant to direct the trial court to allow the applicant to submit only a personal bond and two sureties in lieu of 8 cases.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in 8 cases, details of which are as under:

¶9

(i) case crime no. 182 of 2024, under section 317(2) BNS, P.S.- Gomti Nagar Vistar, DistrictLucknow;

¶10

(ii) Case Crime no. 178 of 2024 under section 303(2) & 317(2) BNS, P.S- Gomti Nagar Vistar, District- Lucknow;

¶11

(iii) Case Crime no. 179 of 2024 under section 303(2) & 317(2) BNS, P.S- Gomti Nagar Vistar, District- Lucknow;

¶12

(iv) Case Crime no. 332 of 2024 under section 303(2) & 317(2) BNS, P.S- Vibhuti Khand, District-

¶13

Lucknow;

¶14

(v) Case Crime no. 466 of 2024 under section 303(2) & 317(2) BNS, P.S- Gomti Nagar, DistrictLucknow;

¶15

(vi) Case Crime no. 467 of 2024 under section 303(2) & 317(2) BNS, P.S- Gomti Nagar, DistrictLucknow;

¶16

(vii) Case Crime no. 468 of 2024 under section 303(2) & 317(2) BNS, P.S- Gomti Nagar, DistrictLucknow;

¶17

(viii) Case Crime no. 471 of 2024 under section 303(2) & 317(2) BNS, P.S- Gomti Nagar, DistrictLucknow.

¶18

It has been submitted that the applicant has been granted bail by the trial court as well as by this Court in all the aforesaid cases, but furnishing of 16 sureties in 8 different cases is almost impracticable as the applicant is very poor person and he will not be able to arrange four sureties to get bail.

¶19

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] .

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

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 8 cases and a suitable direction in this regard be given to the trial court.

¶23

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 8 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:-

¶24

"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."

¶25

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 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.

¶26

However, as stated earlier, the status, verification and the competency of the surety will always be assessed by the trial court before acceptance.

¶27

Thus, it is directed that, if same sureties are placed before the trial court and they are

¶28

otherwise competent and their status and other particulars have been duly verified, the trial court, in its discretion, may accept the same in all the cases mentioned hereinbefore.

¶29

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

¶30

Order Date :- 5.11.2024 V. Sinha

¶31

Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shivam Vishwakarma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivam Vishwakarma 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

Pratibha Verma and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Lko and 55 Others

Miss X (Victm /Complainant in Crime No. 205/2021) Thru. Grandmother Mrs. Siddheshwari Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Vijaya Nand Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Kuldeep Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Victim a Complainant of Complaint Case No. 16030 of 2021 Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Shivam Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.