Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 37 (0.48 seconds)
Documents citing Shiv Shankar Goutam vs State Of U.P. on 7 December, 2022

Pushpensra Chaudhary @ Kalu vs State Of U.P. And Another on 9 January, 2023

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is involved in 22 criminal cases of the same nature. Bail has been granted to him in all the cases by the concerned court. An application was moved by him before the C.J.M., Agra for permitting filing a single bail bond and two sureties which may be treated as sufficient in all the said cases which stood rejected vide order dated 22.12.2022. It is argued that as bail has been granted in all the cases against the applicant, he is unable to file separate bail bonds and surety bonds, hence he may be permitted to file a personal bond and two sureties in one case which may be treated in all the said 22 cases. Learned counsel has relied upon the order passed by the Apex Court in the case of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky vs. State of U.P.: S.L.P. (Crl) No. 8914-8915/2018 decided on 29.10.2018, order dated 12.05.2021 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in U/S 482/378/407 No. 1974 of 2021 (Shiv Shankar Gautam vs. State of U.P.), the order dated 28.06.2022 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Application U/S 482 No. 15989 of 2022 (Sunil Chak vs. State of U.P. and another) and the order dated 18.07.2022 also passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Application U/S 482 No. 19972 of 2022 (Jitendra Gupta @ Jeetu vs. State of U.P. and another) and has argued that in the said matters the situation was identical and the courts ordered filing a personal bond and two sureties in one case which was directed to be treated to be valid in all the other cases and was directed to be deemed to be an adequate compliance of all the other bail orders for release of the applicant. It is argued that as such appropriate directions to the said effect be passed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 17 - S Gopal - Full Document

Akhilesh Chauhan vs State Of U.P. on 28 January, 2023

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is involved in 26 criminal cases of the same nature. Bail has been granted to him in all the cases by the concerned court. It is argued that as bail has been granted in all the cases against the applicant, he is unable to file separate bail bonds and surety bonds, hence he may be permitted to file a personal bond and two sureties in one case which may be treated in all the said 26 cases. Learned counsel has relied upon the order passed by the Apex Court in the case of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky vs. State of U.P.: S.L.P. (Crl) No. 8914-8915/2018 decided on 29.10.2018, order dated 12.05.2021 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in U/S 482/378/407 No. 1974 of 2021 (Shiv Shankar Gautam vs. State of U.P.), the order dated 28.06.2022 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Application U/S 482 No. 15989 of 2022 (Sunil Chak vs. State of U.P. and another) and the order dated 18.07.2022 in Application U/S 482 No. 19972 of 2022 (Jitendra Gupta @ Jeetu vs. State of U.P. and another) & the order dated 16.03.2021 in Application U/S 482 No. 19367 of 2020 (Ravi Kumar Rastogi vs. State of U.P.)
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - S Gopal - Full Document

Irfan @ Chaumin vs State Of U.P. on 28 April, 2023

4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is involved in 7 criminal cases of the same nature. Bail has been granted to him in all the cases by the concerned court. An application was moved by him before the C.J.M., Meerut for permitting filing a single bail bond and two sureties which may be treated as sufficient in all the said cases which stood rejected vide order dated 22.12.2022. It is argued that as bail has been granted in all the cases against the applicant, he is unable to file separate bail bonds and surety bonds, hence he may be permitted to file a personal bond and two sureties in one case which may be treated in all the said 7 cases. Learned counsel has relied upon the order passed by the Apex Court in the case of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky vs. State of U.P.: S.L.P. (Crl) No. 8914-8915/2018 decided on 29.10.2018, order dated 12.05.2021 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in U/S 482/378/407 No. 1974 of 2021 (Shiv Shankar Gautam vs. State of U.P.), the order dated 28.06.2022 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Application U/S 482 No. 15989 of 2022 (Sunil Chak vs. State of U.P. and another) and the order dated 18.07.2022 also passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Application U/S 482 No. 19972 of 2022 (Jitendra Gupta @ Jeetu vs. State of U.P. and another) and has argued that in the said matters the situation was identical and the courts ordered filing a personal bond and two sureties in one case which was directed to be treated to be valid in all the other cases and was directed to be deemed to be an adequate compliance of all the other bail orders for release of the applicant. It is argued that as such appropriate directions to the said effect be passed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - S Gopal - Full Document

Shridhar Gurjar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 11 January, 2023

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is involved in 22 criminal cases of the same nature. Bail has been granted to him in all the cases by the concerned court. An application was moved by him before the C.J.M., Agra for permitting filing a single bail bond and two sureties which may be treated as sufficient in all the said cases which stood rejected vide order dated 21.12.2022. It is argued that as bail has been granted in all the cases against the applicant, he is unable to file separate bail bonds and surety bonds, hence he may be permitted to file a personal bond and two sureties in one case which may be treated in all the said 22 cases. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgement and orders passed by the Apex Court in the case of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky vs. State of U.P.: S.L.P. (Crl) No. 8914-8915/2018 decided on 29.10.2018, order dated 12.05.2021 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in U/S 482/378/407 No. 1974 of 2021 (Shiv Shankar Gautam vs. State of U.P.), the order dated 28.06.2022 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Application U/S 482 No. 15989 of 2022 (Sunil Chak vs. State of U.P. and another) and the order dated 18.07.2022 also passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Application U/S 482 No. 19972 of 2022 (Jitendra Gupta @ Jeetu vs. State of U.P. and another) and the order dated 11.1.2023 passed by this Court in Application U/S 482 No.364 of 2023 (Pushpensra Chaudhary @ Kalu vs. State of U.P. and Another) and has argued that in the said matters the situation was identical and the courts ordered filing a personal bond and two sureties in one case which was directed to be treated to be valid in all the other cases and was directed to be deemed to be an adequate compliance of all the other bail orders for release of the applicant. It is argued that as such appropriate directions to the said effect be passed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S Gopal - Full Document

Monu @ Mota vs State Of U.P. on 23 January, 2023

The applicant is in jail since 21.11.2016. There are three cases aganinst him in which he was granted bail on 25.02.2019 in two cases which are referred to in para 5-7 of the affidavit and on 01.03.2019 which is referred to in para 9 of the affidavit and even despite the same he is in jail since last three years after being granted bail by the concerned courts. It is argued that as bail has been granted in all the cases against the applicant, he is unable to file separate bail bonds and surety bonds, hence he may be permitted to file a personal bond and two sureties in one case which may be treated in all the said three cases. Learned counsel has relied upon the order passed by the Apex Court in the case of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky vs. State of U.P.: S.L.P. (Crl) No. 8914-8915/2018 decided on 29.10.2018, order dated 12.05.2021 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in U/S 482/378/407 No. 1974 of 2021 (Shiv Shankar Gautam vs. State of U.P.), the order dated 28.06.2022 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Application U/S 482 No. 15989 of 2022 (Sunil Chak vs. State of U.P. and another) and the order dated 18.07.2022 also passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Application U/S 482 No. 19972 of 2022 (Jitendra Gupta @ Jeetu vs. State of U.P. and another) as well as order dated 09.01.2023 passed by this Court in Application U/S 482 No. 364 of 2022 (Pushpendra Chaudhary @ Kalu vs. State of U.P. and another) and has argued that in the said matters the situation was identical and the courts ordered filing a personal bond and two sureties in one case which was directed to be treated to be valid in all the other cases and was directed to be deemed to be an adequate compliance of all the other bail orders for release of the applicant. It is argued that as such appropriate directions to the said effect be passed. Learned counsel for the State has been heard who could not dispute the said proposition and also orders as relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records and the facts of the case and orders relied by learned counsel for the applicant, it is provided that the applicant shall be released in all the three cases which have been mentioned in paragraph 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the affidavit in support of application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1 lakh and two sureties to the like amount (one of the sureties will be of family member of the applicant) which shall hold good for all the three cases. With the aforesaid direction, the present application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 23.1.2023 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.)
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - S Gopal - Full Document

Shadan vs State Of U.P. And Another on 25 January, 2023

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is involved in 11 criminal cases of the same nature. Bail has been granted to him in all the cases by the concerned court. It is argued that as bail has been granted in all the cases against the applicant, he is unable to file separate bail bonds and surety bonds, hence he may be permitted to file a personal bond and two sureties in one case which may be treated in all the said 11 cases. Learned counsel has relied upon the order passed by the Apex Court in the case of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky vs. State of U.P.: S.L.P. (Crl) No. 8914-8915/2018 decided on 29.10.2018, order dated 12.05.2021 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in U/S 482/378/407 No. 1974 of 2021 (Shiv Shankar Gautam vs. State of U.P.), the order dated 28.06.2022 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Application U/S 482 No. 15989 of 2022 (Sunil Chak vs. State of U.P. and another) and the order dated 18.07.2022 also passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Application U/S 482 No. 19972 of 2022 (Jitendra Gupta @ Jeetu vs. State of U.P. and another) and order dated 09.01.2023 passed by this Court in Application U/S 482 No. 364 of 2022 (Pushpensra Chaudhary @ Kalu vs. State of U.P. and Another) and has argued that in the said matters the situation was identical and the courts ordered filing a personal bond and two sureties in one case which was directed to be treated to be valid in all the other cases and was directed to be deemed to be an adequate compliance of all the other bail orders for release of the applicant. It is argued that as such appropriate directions to the said effect be passed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - S Gopal - Full Document

Javed Alias Sameer Alias Kalua vs State Of U.P. on 2 February, 2023

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is involved in 5 criminal cases. Bail has been granted to him in all the cases by the concerned court. It is argued that though the applicant has been granted bail in all five cases but since he is unable to manage the separate surety bond, hence he could not submit his bail bond in all cases and still languishing in jail, hence he may be permitted to file a personal bond and two sureties in one case which may be treated in all the said five cases. Learned counsel has relied upon the order passed by the Apex Court in the case of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky vs. State of U.P.: S.L.P. (Crl) No. 8914-8915/2018 decided on 29.10.2018, order dated 12.05.2021 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in U/S 482/378/407 No. 1974 of 2021 (Shiv Shankar Gautam vs. State of U.P.), the order dated 28.06.2022 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Application U/S 482 No. 15989 of 2022 (Sunil Chak vs. State of U.P. and another) and the order dated 18.07.2022 also passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Application U/S 482 No. 19972 of 2022 (Jitendra Gupta @ Jeetu vs. State of U.P. and another) and Crl. Misc.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - S Gopal - Full Document

Gopal Krishna @ Gulshan vs State Of U.P. on 22 February, 2023

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is involved in five criminal cases. Bail has been granted to him in all the cases by the concerned court. It is argued that as bail has been granted in all the cases against the applicant, he is unable to file separate bail bonds and surety bonds, hence he may be permitted to file a personal bond and two sureties in one case which may be treated in all the said 5 cases. Learned counsel has relied upon the order passed by the Apex Court in the case of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky vs. State of U.P.: S.L.P. (Crl) No. 8914-8915/2018 decided on 29.10.2018, order dated 12.05.2021 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in U/S 482/378/407 No. 1974 of 2021 (Shiv Shankar Gautam vs. State of U.P.), the order dated 28.06.2022 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Application U/S 482 No. 15989 of 2022 (Sunil Chak vs. State of U.P. and another) and the order dated 18.07.2022 also passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Application U/S 482 No. 19972 of 2022 (Jitendra Gupta @ Jeetu vs. State of U.P. and another) and Crl. Misc.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - S Gopal - Full Document

Surjit @ Chintu vs State Of U.P. on 15 March, 2023

Learned counsel has relied upon the order passed by the Apex Court in the case of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky vs. State of U.P.: S.L.P. (Crl) No. 8914-8915/2018 decided on 29.10.2018, order dated 12.05.2021 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in U/S 482/378/407 No. 1974 of 2021 (Shiv Shankar Gautam vs. State of U.P.), the order dated 28.06.2022 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Application U/S 482 No. 15989 of 2022 (Sunil Chak vs. State of U.P. and another) and the order dated 18.07.2022 also passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Application U/S 482 No. 19972 of 2022 (Jitendra Gupta @ Jeetu vs. State of U.P. and another) and Crl. Misc.
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - S Gopal - Full Document

Amitesh Kumar @ Monu vs State Of U.P. And Another on 15 March, 2023

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is involved in 22 criminal cases of the same nature. Bail has been granted to him in all the cases by the concerned court. An application was moved by him before the C.J.M., Agra for permitting filing a single bail bond and two sureties which may be treated as sufficient in all the said cases which stood rejected vide order dated 14.2.2023. It is argued that as bail has been granted in all the cases against the applicant, he is unable to file separate bail bonds and surety bonds, hence he may be permitted to file a personal bond and two sureties in one case which may be treated in all the said 22 cases. Learned counsel has relied upon the order passed by the Apex Court in the case of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky vs. State of U.P.: S.L.P. (Crl) No. 8914-8915/2018 decided on 29.10.2018, order dated 12.05.2021 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in U/S 482/378/407 No. 1974 of 2021 (Shiv Shankar Gautam vs. State of U.P.), the order dated 28.06.2022 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Application U/S 482 No. 15989 of 2022 (Sunil Chak vs. State of U.P. and another) and the order dated 18.07.2022 also passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Application U/S 482 No. 19972 of 2022 (Jitendra Gupta @ Jeetu vs. State of U.P. and another) and has argued that in the said matters the situation was identical and the courts ordered filing a personal bond and two sureties in one case which was directed to be treated to be valid in all the other cases and was directed to be deemed to be an adequate compliance of all the other bail orders for release of the applicant. It is argued that as such appropriate directions to the said effect be passed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - S Gopal - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next