Allahabad High Court
Amit vs State Of U.P. on 20 March, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:50590 Court No. - 92 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6967 of 2024 Applicant :- Amit Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jay Prakash Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard Sri Jay Prakash Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shashidhar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer for direction to the Court below to accept one surety bond in all five criminal cases in which the applicant has been granted bail, (1) case crime no.580 of 2020, under Section 394, 342, 417 IPC, P.S.Beta-2, District Gautam Budh Nagar (granted bail on 17.10.2022), (2) case crime no.634 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 489A, 489B, 489C IPC, P.S. Beta-2, District Gautam Budh Nagar (granted bail on 10.11.2022), (3) case crime no.632 of 2020, under Section 307 IPC, P.S. Beta-2, District Gautam Budh Nagar (granted bail on 04.05.2022), (4) case crime no.633 of 2020, under Section 25.27 of Arms Act, P.S. Beta-2, District Gautam Budh Nagar (granted bail on 14.06.2022), (5) case crime no.341 of 2021, under Section 2/3 (1) U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, Police Station Beta-2, District Gautam Budh Nagar (granted bail on 29.01.2024).
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is impossible for the applicant to submit separate sureties in each case in which he has been granted bail.
4. The applicant has been granted bail in all the aforesaid cases. Despite the fact that the applicant has been granted bail, he is still in jail inasmuch as the applicant being a poor person is unable to produce the sureties in each case.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied on the judgment of Madras High Court in the case of Sagayam @ Devasagayam vs. The State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2017 (3) CTC 291 wherein it has been held:-
"17. While granting bail, the Court can direct the accused to execute bail bond. As per Section 440 Cr.P.C., the bond amount should not be excessive. When a person so directed to execute the bond either with surety or without surety is not able to furnish the sureties, then under Section 445 Cr.P.C., he has the option to offer cash security. But even then, it must be a reasonable amount. It should not be an arbitrary, excessive amount. It should not be in the nature of deprivation of grant of bail by fixing an heavy amount as surety amount. If heavy amount is directed to be deposited as cash security, the bailee/accused will not be in a position to comply it. If heavy amount is demanded from the surety, then the bailor will not be forthcoming. And 'haves' will go out, while 'have nots' will remain in jail."
6. Learned counsel for the applicant also relied on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky Vs. The State of Uttar Praesh [SLP (Crl.) No.8914-8915/2018] where in the bail condition of producing 31 sureties was found to be onerous and the prisoner was permitted to execute a personal bond for Rs.30,000/- which was hold good for 31 cases.
7. Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that it is always the discretion and satisfaction of the trial court, so far as the acceptance of the sureties is concerned.
8. In view of the above, the applicant is permitted to execute a personal bond and two sureties as per any one bail granting order, out of five orders dated 17.10.2023, 10.11.2022, 04.05.2022, 14.06.2022 and 29.01.2024 and the same shall hold good for all five cases.
9. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the petition is disposed off.
Order Date :- 20.3.2024 S.P.