Partly allowed

Jugul Ahirwar and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Mar 2025CRLA/2390/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified the trial court's bail order, reducing the surety requirement from Rs. 5 lakh to personal bonds of Rs. 25,000 each with one surety of equivalent amount, relying on Article 21 and precedent to prevent infringing rights through unmanageable bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail conditions modified: personal bonds of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety of equivalent amount instead of Rs. 5 lakh surety.

Jugul Ahirwar and Another vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2390 of 2025

¶3

Appellant :- Jugul Ahirwar And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.

¶5

Heard.

¶6

Admit.

¶7

Summon the trial court record.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants-convicts submits that the applicants have been granted interim bail by the trial court vide order dated 11.02.2025. However, the applicants-convicts are unable to arrange the surety amount of Rs. 5 lakh and, therefore, seek modification of the surety condition by requesting a reduction of the amount.

¶9

The purpose of furnishing a surety is to ensure the presence of an accused during the trial against a specific set of charges levelled by the prosecution or, in the case of a convict, to ensure the presence of the convict during the pendency of the appeal. In both situations, if a person has secured bail but is unable to furnish two sureties or fulfill other conditions, resulting in his continued detention in jail, this would infringe upon the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, despite having a bail order in his favour. The Supreme Court, in the case of Ramchandra Thangappan Aachari v. State of Maharashtra reported as 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2629 , held that such a situation would constitute a travesty of justice. Therefore, the

¶10

practice of invariably requiring two sureties in every case should be discontinued in view of the evolving jurisprudence on this subject.

¶11

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the order of the trial court dated 11.02.2025 is hereby modified to the extent that the applicants-convicts shall be at liberty to furnish personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each, along with one surety of an equivalent amount. The rest conditions of the order shall remain absolute during the pendency of the appeal.

¶12

List the appeal in due course.

¶13

Order Date :- 21.3.2025 Anil K. Sharma

¶14

Justice Vinod Diwakar

¶15

Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jugul Ahirwar and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jugul Ahirwar and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rati Pal (Deceased) and 9 Others vs Rambeti and Another

Balkrishna Patel and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Guddu Dhanuk and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bareilly Development Authority Bareilly vs Shrawan Kumar and Another

Durgesh Kumar and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Bareilly Development Authority Bareilly vs Shankar Lal and Another