Allahabad High Court
Manoj @ Chhotu vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home. Lko on 25 March, 2021
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 29 Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 1723 of 2021 Applicant :- Manoj @ Chhotu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Kaushal Kishore Tewari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
By filing this application, the applicant has prayed for a direction to be issued to the trial court to accept the single set of sureties in all 15 criminal cases, which have been slapped against the applicant on the ground that he is not in a position to arrange two separate sureties in each criminal case.
It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been involved in six criminal cases i.e. Case Crime No. 53/2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 205, 177, 34 IPC, P.S. Krishna Nagar, District Lucknow, Case Crime No. 1052 /2017, under Sections 395, 397, 412, 149 IPC, P.S. Chinhat, District Lucknow, Case Crime No. 34/2018, under Sections 395, 397 IPC, P.S. Chinhat, District Lucknow, Case Crime No. 35/2018, under Sections 395, 397, 412, 149 IPC, P.S. Chinhat, District Lucknow, Case Crime No. 83/2018, under Sections 396, 412/34, 205 IPC, P.S. Kakori, District Lucknow, Case Crime No. 84/2018, under Sections 394, 411, 205/34 IPC, P.S. Kakori, District Lucknow, Case Crime No. 85/2018, under Sections 395, 397, 412,/34, 205 IPC, P.S. Kakori, District Lucknow, Case Crime No. 67/2018, under Sections 396, 412/34 IPC, P.S. Malihabad, District Lucknow, Case Crime No. 68/2018, under Sections 395, 397, 412/34 IPC, P.S. Malihabad, District Lucknow, Case Crime No. 69/2018, under Sections 457, 380, 411 IPC, P.S. Malihabad, District Lucknow, Case Crime No. 15/2018, under Sections 395, 397, 412 IPC, P.S. Fatehpur, District Barabanki, Case Crime No. 1054/2017, under Sections 395, 397, 412 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, Distrrict Barabanki, Case Crime No. 991 of 2017, under Sections 395, 397, 412 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki, Case Crime No. 322 of 2017, under Sections 395, 397, 412 IPC, P.S. Satrikh, District Barabanki, and Case Crime No. 891 of 2018, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters Act, P.S. Chinhat, District Lucknow and in all these fifteen cases the applicant has been released on bail by competent courts but as he could not arrange two separate sureties in each criminal case, he could not be released from the prison, despite he has been granted bail in all 15 cases.
In nutshell the submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that a direction be given to the Subordinate court to accept the same set of sureties in all 15 criminal cases.
Learned A.G.A., however, submit that it is always the discretion of the Magistrate concerned or trial court concerned to accept the sureties having regard to their fitness and other relevant factors.
Having heard learned counsel for the rival parties, the only grievance of the applicant appears to be that, he despite have obtained the order of the bail in fifteen cases is not able to come out of the prison, because he is not able to find separate sureties for each case, and a prayer has been made that, he be permitted to file same sureties in all the 15 cases and a suitable direction in this regard be given to the trial court.
The acceptance of the sureties and the verification of them 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 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 all 15 cases, the answer to this apprehension and grievance is implicit in Section 441-A of Code of Criminal Procedure, which is reproduced as under:-
"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."
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, 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. However, as stated earlier, the status, verification and the competency of the surety will always be assessed by the trial Court before acceptance.
It is therefore directed that, if the same sureties are placed before the trial Court in all the fifteen cases mentioned hereinbefore and they are otherwise competent and their status and other particulars have been verified the trial Court in its discretion may accept the same in all the 15 cases.
With the aforesaid observations, the application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 25.3.2021 Muk