Allahabad High Court
Sonu Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 22 November, 2022
Author: Subhash Chandra Sharma
Bench: Subhash Chandra Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 85 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25420 of 2022 Applicant :- Sonu Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Bahadur Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.
The prayer in the instant application is to quash the order dated 23.02.2022 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate-Etah in Case No.196 of 2022 (State v. Sonu Singh) in Case Crime No.366 of 2021, under Sections 279, 338, 304A, 427 IPC, Police Station-Kotwali Dehat, District Etah as well as to quash the revisional order dated 19.05.2022 passed by the revisional court in Criminal Revision No.54 of 2022 (Sonu Singh v. State of U.P.).
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that in this case the vehicle of the applicant was involved in Crime No.366 of 2021 under Sections 279, 338, 304-A, 427 I.P.C. regarding which he applied for release of the vehicle before the court concerned which was allowed with the condition that applicant to execute a PB of Rs.8 lacs and security amounting to Rs. 5 lacs which is more than the capacity of the applicant against which revision was also filed which was also dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge-Etah by order dated 19.5.2022 and, therefore, learned counsel for the applicant requested to quash the order in question.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing the order of release passed by the learned court concerned and also revisional court.
On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perusal of record, it appears that at the time of the alleged incident, the insurance policy of the vehicle was expired and that was the reason in compliance of Rule 203-B(3) of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998, security was demanded by the court concerned with personal bond of the applicant. In this way, the order passed by the learned courts below cannot be said to be unlawful.
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant prays that the security amount may be reduced as the applicant is not in a position to furnish security of Rs.5 lacs.
In view of the above prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant, the security amount is reduced from Rs.5 lacs to Rs. 4 lacs.
The application is, accordingly, disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 22.11.2022 Jyotsana