Allahabad High Court
Monu Saroj vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Home ... on 20 October, 2022
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 11 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7589 of 2022 Applicant :- Monu Saroj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
Heard Shri Ravindra Shukla, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed with a prayer to direct the learned court below not to insist the applicant to file separate surety bonds in all the nine criminal cases and to accept the same sureties in lieu of all the nine cases mentioned below.
The applicant has stated to be involved in following nine cases and obtained bail orders:
1. Case Crime No.137/2022, under Sections 380/457/411 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Amethi, District Amethi.
2. Case Crime No.163/2022, under Sections 380/411 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Amethi, District Amethi.
3. Case Crime No.165/2022, under Sections 380/411/457 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Amethi, District Amethi.
4. Case Crime No.177/2022, under Sections 380/411/457 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Amethi, District Amethi.
5. Case Crime No.191/2022, under Sections 457/380/511 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Amethi, District Amethi.
6. Case Crime No.195/2022, under Sections 380/411/457 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Amethi, District Amethi.
7. Case Crime No.219/2022, under Sections 380/411/457 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Amethi, District Amethi.
8. Case Crime No.240/2022, under Sections 380/411/457 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Amethi, District Amethi.
9. Case Crime No.248/2022, under Section 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station Kotwali Amethi, District Amethi.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that above mentioned nine false cases were registered against the applicant and in all the 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 nine cases pending before the trial Court, the same would not be accepted 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 two separate 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 the nine cases.
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, it appears that the only grievance of the applicant appears to be that, he despite has obtained the orders of bail in all the nine 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 nine 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 already been passed 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 the nine 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."
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.
Thus, it is directed that if same sureties are placed by the applicant in all the nine cases pending before the trial court and they are otherwise competent and their status and other particulars have been duly verified, the trial court in its discretion may accept the same in all the nine cases.
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 :- 20.10.2022 Saurabh