Bheemshankar Pathak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:35812

Court No. - 11

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5142 of 2025 Applicant :- Bheemshankar Pathak Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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 five cases.

¶7

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

¶8

(i). Case Crime No.261 of 2024, under Sections 380, 457, 411 IPC, Police Station Maurawan, District Unnao.

¶9

(ii). Case Crime No.262 of 2024, under Sections 380, 457, 411 IPC, Police Station Maurawan, District Unnao,

¶10

(iii) Case Crime No.268 of 2024, under Sections 380, 457, 411 IPC, Police Station Maurawan, District Unnao.

¶11

(iv) Case Crime No.393 of 2024, under Sections 305(A), 331(4), 317(2) BNS, Police Station Maurawan, District Unnao.

¶12

(v) Case Crime No.666 of 2024, under Sections u/s 2/3 (1) U.P. Gangster Act and Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1986, Police Station Maurawan, District Unnao.

¶13

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 ten sureties in five different cases is almost impracticable as the applicant is very poor person and he will not be able to arrange ten sureties to get bail.

¶14

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].

¶15

Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of the learned

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

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 five 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:-

¶19

"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."

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

hereinbefore.

¶24

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

¶25

Order Date :- 18.6.2025 J. K. Dinkar

¶26

Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Bheemshankar Pathak v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bheemshankar Pathak v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Raju Yadav and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Robin Gorge Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru.the Prin.Secy. Home and Another

Shivam Pandey and Others Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Divyanshu Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko

Babu Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Dharm Pal Singh Alias Dharmpal Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. and Another