Allahabad High Court
Gaurav Bajpai @ Peelu vs State Of U.P. on 17 August, 2021
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 27
Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 260 of 2021
Applicant :- Gaurav Bajpai @ Peelu
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Dwivedi,Anurag Dwivedi,Mohd. Salman,Rahul Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to direct the learned Court below, Lucknow not to insist the petitioner to file separate surety bonds in each and every eight cases and accept only one surety in lieu of all the eight cases.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in eight cases by showing the false recovery. The details of the cases are as under:-
"(1) Case Crime No. 384/2019, U/s 392/411 I.P.C. the Police of Police Station Mandiyaon, District Lucknow, (2) Case Crime No. 405/2019, U/s 392/411 I.P.C. the Police of Police Station Mandiyaon, District Lucknow, (3) Case Crime No. 517/2019, U/s 323/392/411 I.P.C. the Police of Police Station Mandiyaon, District Lucknow (4) Case Crime No. 168/2019, U/s 392/411 I.P.C. the Police of Police Station Mandiyaon, District Lucknow, (5) Case Crime No. 125/2019, U/s 392/411 I.P.C. the Police of Police Station Jankipuram, District Lucknow, (6) Case Crime No. 518/2019, U/s 3/25 Arms Act, the Police of Police Station Mandiyaon District Lucknow released on bail 03.12.2019, Bail no 7371/2019Granted by Learned Additional Districtt Judge Court 18 Lucknow (7) Case Crime No. 156/2019, U/s 147/148/323/504/506/452/427 1.P.C. the Police of Police Station Aliganj, District Lucknow and (8) Case Crime No. 749/2019, U/s 2/3 U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a poor labour and doing work on the basis of daily wages. As such, he seeks the benefit of judgment passed by Hon'be Supreme Court of India in "Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky vs. The State of U.P." passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No. 8914-8915 of 2018.
The relevant paragraphs of the judgment reads as under:-
"Considering the submissions, the impugned order is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) and the same bond shall hold good for all 31 cases. There shall be two sureties who shall execute the bond for Rs.30,000/- which bond shall hold good for all the 31 cases. It is clarified that the personal bond so executed by the petitioner and the bond so executed by the two sureties shall hold good for all the 31 cases."
Opposing the prayer of the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State submits that it is always the discretion and satisfaction of the concerned trial court so far as the acceptance of the surety is concerned.
Considering the aforesaid, it is provided that the petitioner may furnish a personal bond and two sureties which shall be treated to be valid in all eight cases above mentioned in which the bail orders have been passed.
With these observations, the petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 17.8.2021
Madhu
