Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Rafi Thru. Her Mother Bibby vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 15 November, 2022
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8141 of 2022 Applicant :- Mohd. Rafi Thru. Her Mother Bibby Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Waqar Husain,Salman Abbas Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
Heard Shri Salman Abbas, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed by the applicant- Mohd. Rafi with the following prayers:-
" To issue appropriate order or direction it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be released the applicant on previous bail bond and pleased to grant similar relief which earlier granted to Ravi @ Sanno Vs. State of U.P. in Crl. Misc. Case No. 656/2020 (482Cr.P.C.) on 14.02.2020, in view of settled law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Honey Nishad @ Mohd. Imran Vs. State of U.P. decided on 29.10.2018, for securing the interest of justice".
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though in the prayer clause of the petition a prayer to release the applicant/ accused on the same bail bonds which has been earlier filed by the sureties has been made but he is confining his prayer to the tune that the applicant may be permitted to file the fresh surety bonds by the same sureties in pursuance of the order dated 19.10.2022 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST Act, Lucknow.
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 regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the order intended to be passed the service of notice on opposite party no.2 is hereby dispensed with.
Perusal of the record in the background of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant would reveal that initially the applicant/ accused was released on bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court by passing a detailed order dated 30.11.2021 in Crl. Appeal No. 992 of 2021, however for the two dates i.e. on 25.5.2022 and 22.8.2022 the applicant/ accused remained absent from the trial court and non-bailable warrants were issued against him and he was arrested in compliance of the same and was confined in prison. In this scenario another bail application was moved by the applicant/ accused before the trial court which was allowed on 19.10.2022 subject to the condition that the applicant shall be released on bail on his submitting two sureties and also on filing undertaking by them that accused/ applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each and every date fixed by the Court. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant/ accused is that no notice under Section 446 Cr.P.C. was issued to the sureties filed by the applicant in pursuance of the bail order dated 30.11.2021 passed in Crl. Appeal No. 992 of 2021 and it was only on account of non-presence of the applicant before the trial court on 2 dates, non-bailable warrants were issued and the applicant was subsequently arrested. Therefore the applicant/ accused be permitted to file the surety bonds by the same sureties again which were earlier filed by him in pursuance of the order dated 30.11.2021 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court.
Perusal of the record would also reveal that there is substance in the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that no notice appears to have been issued by the trial court under Section 446 of the Cr.P.C. Thus the sureties earlier filed by the applicant/ accused persons appears to be competent for standing sureties for the applicant again.
Thus, having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case it is provided that if surety bonds of the same sureties are presented before the trial court who were earlier filed their surety bonds in compliance of the order of the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 30.11.2021 passed in Crl. Appeal No. 992 of 2021, the same may be accepted by the trial court if they are otherwise capablecompetent and their identity has been established.
It is also provided that while making a decision with regard to the acceptance of the sureties as directed above, the Magistrate or the trial Court would have due regard to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in order dated 29.10.2018 passed in Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky Vs. State of U.P., Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 8914-8915 of 2018.
With the aforesaid observations, the application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 15.11.2022 Muk