Khalid Vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37274 of 2017

Khalid		.....Applicant(s)
	Versus
State of U.P.		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: :	Sudhir Kumar Agarwal G.A.

¶4

Court No. - 84

¶5

HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J.

¶6

Heard Sri Sudhir Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant, as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the entire material available on record.

¶7

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to quash the order dated 08.03.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, District Muzaffar Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 192 of 2016 (Khalid vs. State of U.P.) and the order dated 17.06.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar in Case No. 402/9 of 2016 (State vs. Khalid), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Budhana, District Muzaffar Nagar, with the further prayer to direct the court concerned to release the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- deposited before the court concerned to the applicant in the aforesaid case.

¶8

As per the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, in compliance of the order dated 23.12.2015 passed in the bail application, the applicant deposited a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- by way of challan bearing No. 69 before the court concerned on 24.12.2015 towards sureties. Subsequently, on 12.01.2016, the applicant furnished two fresh sureties along with personal bond in compliance of the order of the same date, which were duly accepted by the court concerned. It is further submitted that thereafter the applicant moved an application seeking release of the aforesaid deposited amount. However, the said application was rejected by the court concerned vide order dated 17.06.2016 on the ground that the application was not maintainable as the case had already been committed to the Court of Sessions. Aggrieved against the said order, the applicant preferred Criminal Revision No. 192 of 2016 before the learned Sessions Judge,which was also rejected vide order dated 08.03.2017 with observation that order

¶9

A482 No. 37274 of 2017

¶10

2

¶11

is interlocutory in nature, hence revision is not maintainable against such order.

¶12

The core issue involved in the present matter is with regard to the retention of the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- deposited by the applicant pursuant to the bail order dated 23.12.2015 towards sureties. It is not in dispute that subsequent to such deposit, the applicant furnished two fresh sureties along with personal bond, which have already been accepted by the court concerned.

¶13

In view of the aforesaid facts, once the applicant has furnished fresh sureties and personal bond in compliance of the bail order, the purpose of retaining the amount deposited earlier no longer survives. The continued retention of such amount, without any subsisting reason, appears to be unjustified. The courts below, while rejecting the application of the applicant, have failed to consider this material aspect of the matter and have dismissed the application on a technical ground of maintainability without adjudicating the substantive issue involved.

¶14

Accordingly, the impugned order(s) dated 17.06.2016 passed by the court concerned and dated 08.03.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffar Nagar, are hereby set aside.

¶15

Accordingly, the present application is disposed of with the direction that the applicant shall be at liberty to move a fresh application before the court concerned to release the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- deposited through challan bearing No. 69.

¶16

If such application alongwith certified copy of this order is moved by the applicant, the court concerned is further directed to dispose of the same as per the provision of law.

¶17

(Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.)

¶18

April 20, 2026 Brijesh

¶19

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

Khalid v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khalid 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

Similar cases

Dr Vicky vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Anita vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Satish Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Dev Mani Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Gautam Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil Kumar Jain Vs State of U.P.