Allahabad High Court
Sumit Gupta @ Samit Gupta vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. & ... on 7 June, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 ALL 1077
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 20 Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 10756 of 2021 Petitioner :- Sumit Gupta @ Samit Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sarvesh Kumar Pandey,Vineetapandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
The case is taken up through video conferencing.
Heard learned counsel for revisionist as well as learned AGA for State.
The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the trial to accept the two sureties filed by the petitioner in all criminal cases filed against him or to issue any other directions of appropriate nature.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely involved by the police in following 10 cases:
(1) Case Crime No. 274 of 2020 under Sections 41 Cr.P.C. and 411 IPC Police Station PGI, District Lucknow.
(2) Case Crime No. 276 of 2020 under Sections 4/25 of the Arms Act Police Station PGI, District Lucknow.
(3) Case Crime No. 988 of 2019 under Sections 380 and 411 IPC Police Station PGI, District Lucknow.
(4) Case Crime No. 33 of 2020 under Sections 457, 380 and 411 IPC Police Station PGI, District Lucknow.
(5) Case Crime No. 34 of 2020 under Sections 457, 380 and 411 IPC Police Station PGI, District Lucknow.
(6) Case Crime No. 62 of 2020 under Sections 457, 380 and 411 IPC Police Station PGI, District Lucknow.
(7) Case Crime No. 268 of 2020 under Sections 457, 380 and 411 IPC Police Station PGI, District Lucknow.
(8) Case Crime No. 120 of 2020 under Sections 457, 380 and 411 IPC Police Station Ashiyana, District Lucknow.
(9) Case Crime No. 143 of 2020 under Sections 457, 380 and 411 IPC Police Station Ashiyana, District Lucknow.
(10) Case Crime No. 388 of 2020 under Sections 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 Police Station PGI, District Lucknow.
While referring to the above mentioned cases it has been overwhelmingly submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that in all these cases the petitioner has been falsely implicated due to biasness of the police and in fact the petitioner has not committed any offence and moreover he has been released on bail in all above cases by the competent courts but as he could not procure two sureties in each cases as directed by the courts he is still languishing in jail and could not be released from the prison.
It is further submitted that having regard to the recent surge in the COVID 19 cases the further detention of the petitioner in the prison may be detrimental to his life and therefore a direction be given to the trial court to accept the same set of sureties in all the above mentioned cases.
In nutshell the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner is that the trial courts be directed to entertain the same sureties in all 10 cases shown against the applicant.
Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the contention of learned counsel for the applicant, on the ground that, it is always the discretion and satisfaction of the trial Court, so far as, the acceptance of the sureties is concerned.
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 ten cases mentioned herein before, 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 ten cases and also that suitable direction in this regard be given to the trial courts.
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 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 all ten 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 10 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 ten cases.
With the aforesaid observations, the application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 7.6.2021 J.K. Dinkar