Ujagar Singh and Another vs State of U.P.

This appeal under Section - 495 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS') has been preferred against order dated 18.01.2025, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Court No.2, Hathras in Misc. Case No. 90 of 2023 (State Vs. Ujagar Singh and Another), under Section - 446 Cr.P.C., whereby the application filed by appellants / sureties for discharge from surety bonds in S.T. No. 130 of 2015 (State Vs. Mahesh), under Section - 307, has been rejected.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants have stood sureties for accused Mahesh Kumar in S.T. No. 130 of 2015 (State Vs Mahesh), under Section - 307 I.P.C., Police Station - Sikandra Rao, District - Hathras. During trial said accused Mahesh Kumar has absconded and thus vide order dated 02.03.2023 a miscellaneous case was registered against appellants vide Criminal Misc. Case No. 90 of 2023 under Section - 446 Cr.P.C. and later recovery warrants were were issued against them. It was submitted that said accused Mahesh Kumar was

¶12

CRLA No. 4691 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

arrested by the police on 14.08.2024 and thereafter he was granted bail vide order dated 29.08.2024. The appellants / sureties have moved an application dated 18.01.2025 before the trial court stating that as accused Mahesh Kumar has already been arrested and released on bail on the basis of fresh sureties, thus appellants may be discharged from the bail bonds. That application has been rejected by the trial court vide impugned order dated 18.01.2025. Learned counsel submitted that as accused has already been arrested and thus, the recovery proceedings against appellants / sureties are liable to be closed. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that impugned order is against law and thus, liable to be set aside.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the appeal and submitted that recovery proceedings against appellants / sureties are pending since 02.03.2023 but the same have not been challenged by the appellants. It was submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order.

¶16

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

¶17

Perusal of record shows that appellants were sureties of accused Mahesh Kumar in above referred S.T. No. 130 of 2015. It appears that said accused has absconded and thus, a Criminal Misc. Case was registered against appellants under Section - 446 Cr.P.C. and in that case recovery warrants are being issued against appellants. There is nothing to show that appellants / sureties have challenged the said proceedings under Section - 446 Cr.P.C.. As the proceedings under Section - 446 Cr.P.C. were pending against appellants since 02.03.2023 thus, it cannot be said that impugned order, by which the application of appellants for discharge from suretyship has been rejected, is suffering from any material illegality

¶18

CRLA No. 4691 of 2025

¶19

3

¶20

or perversity.

¶21

However, as the said accused Mahesh Kumar has already been arrested by the police and has been produced before the trial court and thereafter he has been granted bail, thus the trial court may consider to reduce the amount of bail bonds, to be recovered from appellants.

¶22

In view of aforesaid, it is directed that in case appellants / sureties file an application before the trial court concerned in the aforesaid miscellaneous case for reducing the amount to be recovered from appellants / sureties under Section - 446 Cr.P.C., within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided by the trial court expeditiously and keeping in view the fact that accused, for which appellants have stood sureties, has already been arrested and produced before the trial court. It is further directed that for a period of three weeks from today and in case such an application is moved by the appellants before the court concerned within the aforesaid period, till disposal of such application, no coercive action shall be taken against the appellants.

¶23

With aforesaid observations, appeal is disposed of.

¶24

(Raj Beer Singh,J.)

¶25

November 21, 2025 S Rawat

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SHOBHIT RAWAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ujagar Singh and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ujagar Singh and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sageer vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gauri Shankar and 8 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Kailash vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajesh vs State of U.P.

Bobby Gupta and 7 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Dharmendra and Another vs State of U.P. and Another