Allahabad High Court
Pavan @ Bhola And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. on 29 March, 2024
Author: Vivek Varma
Bench: Vivek Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:54012 Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3451 of 2024 Applicant :- Pavan @ Bhola And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed with the prayer to direct the learned trial Court not to insist the applicant to file separate surety bonds in the five criminal cases and to accept one surety in lieu of all 20 cases mentioned below.
(1) Case Crime No. 495 of 2022, under Sections 380, 457, 411 I.P.C., P.S. Tajganj, District Agra. (2) Case Crime No. 864 of 2022, under Sections 380, 457, 411, 413 I.P.C., P.S. Tajganj, District Agra. (3) Case Crime No. 928 of 2022, under Sections 380, 457, 411, 413 I.P.C., P.S. Tajganj, District Agra. (4) Case Crime No. 944 of 2022, under Sections 380, 457, 411, 413 I.P.C., P.S. Tajganj, District Agra. (5) Case Crime No. 945 of 2022, under Sections 380, 457, 411, 413 I.P.C., P.S. Tajganj, District Agra. (6) Case Crime No. 946 of 2022, under Sections 380, 457, 411, 413 I.P.C., P.S. Tajganj, District Agra. (7) Case Crime No. 970 of 2022, under Sections 380, 411, 413 I.P.C., P.S. Tajganj, District Agra. (8) Case Crime No. 977 of 2022, under Sections 380, 457, 411, 413 I.P.C., P.S. Tajganj, District Agra. (9) Case Crime No. 995 of 2022, under Sections 380, 457, 411, 413 I.P.C., P.S. Tajganj, District Agra. (10) Case Crime No. 1033 of 2022, under Sections 380, 411, 413 I.P.C., P.S. Tajganj, District Agra. (11) Case Crime No. 36 of 2023, under Sections 380, 457, 411, 413 I.P.C., P.S. Tajganj, District Agra. (12) Case Crime No. 67 of 2023, under Sections 380, 457, 411, 413 I.P.C., P.S. Tajganj, District Agra. (13) Case Crime No. 71 of 2023, under Sections 380, 457, 411, 413 I.P.C., P.S. Tajganj, District Agra. (14) Case Crime No. 136 of 2023, under Sections 380, 457, 411, 413 I.P.C., P.S. Tajganj, District Agra. (15) Case Crime No. 166 of 2023, under Sections 380, 457, 411, 413 I.P.C., P.S. Tajganj, District Agra. (16) Case Crime No. 176 of 2023, under Sections 380, 457, 411, 413 I.P.C., P.S. Tajganj, District Agra. (17) Case Crime No. 225 of 2023, under Sections 380, 457, 411, 413 I.P.C., P.S. Tajganj, District Agra. (18) Case Crime No. 229 of 2023, under Sections 380, 457, 411, 413 I.P.C., P.S. Tajganj, District Agra. (19) Case Crime No. 449 of 2023, under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. Tajganj, District Agra. (20) Case Crime No. 909 of 2023, under Sections 380, 457, 411 I.P.C., P.S. Tajganj, District Agra.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that five false cases were registered against the applicant and in all those cases, the applicant has been directed to be released on bail by the competent Courts, however, the applicant is having every apprehension that, if the same sureties will be placed in all the cases pending before the trial Court, the same would not be accepted by the trial Court, and despite the applicant has been directed to be released on bail, he will not come out of the prison, because he will not be in a position to arrange separate set of sureties for each case. Therefore, it is submitted that, the trial Court be directed to permit the accused-applicant to file same sureties in all twenty cases.
4. 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.
5. 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 twenty 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 five cases and a suitable direction in this regard be given to the trial Court.
6. 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 five cases is concerned, 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."
7. 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 and 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.
8. Thus it is directed that, if same sureties are placed before the trial Court in all above twenty cases 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 twenty cases, but the satisfaction in this regard will always be of the trial Court.
9. 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.
10. With the aforesaid observations, the application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.3.2024 S.S.