Allahabad High Court
Hridesh Bhadauriya vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 August, 2022
Bench: Shree Prakash Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 86
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22875 of 2022
Applicant :- Hridesh Bhadauriya
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Lalit Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
The instant application has been filed for quashing the order dated 08.07.2022 passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra in Misc. Case filed by the applicant in case crime No.411 of 2021, under Sections 379, 411 of IPC, Police Station-Shahganj, District-Agra. Further to direct the learned court below to release the applicant from Jail on already furnished personal bond and sureties in case crime No.341 of 2021, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 473 IPC and 15 D.A.A. Act, Police Station-Kamla Nagar, District-Agra and case crime No.342 of 2021, under Section 8/20/60 of N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station-Kamla Nagar, District-Agra, so executed which may hold good for all six cases, in which the applicant is implicated.
Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that as per the prosecution version, on 16.12.2021, the S.H.O., namely, Sri Uttam Chand Patel along with other police personnel were on patrolling duty and they got information through S.O.G., In-charge Inspector, Kuldeep Dixit that a gang of theft of cars is coming from outsides. After receiving the aforesaid information, the team raided and started checking cars and vehicles. Thereafter, the present applicant was caught and six cases were levelled against the present applicant. He submits that in all the six cases he has been granted bail and when an application was made by the present applicant for releasing him by accepting two sureties and one personal bond for all the six cases, the same was rejected by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra vide order dated 08.07.2022 on the ground that 12 sureties and 6 bail bonds are required to be submitted.
The present applicant has assailed the aforesaid order and submitted that as per the settled proposition of law for all the cases which were levelled against the applicant in one stroke and, if such an application was made by the present applicant for releasing him, then applicant be enlarged on bail by accepting one personal bond and two sureties for all six cases.
In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance of a case of Special Leave to Appeal No.8914-8915 of 2018 (Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh). The order passed in the aforesaid case is quoted hereinunder:-
"Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner is said to have been involved in 31 criminal cases for various offences.
The Trial Court granted bail in all the 31 cases by different orders inter alia on condition of arranging two sureties each in all the cases.
The petitioner moved the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, contending that it was impossible for the petitioner to arrange 62 sureties.
It is the case of the petitioner that the High Court had in similar circumstances granted bail to the petitioner with two sureties of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) in the case under Gangster Act and the same sureties were to be the sureties in all other cases as well, by an order dated 21.9.2017. The petitioner was directed to execute personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- in each case.
However, by the impugned order, the High Court has modified the conditions of bail imposed by the Trial Court in the instant cases by directing the Trial Court to accept one common surety for all the cases and one surety each for the 31 cases.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the Court has granted bail to the petitioner, the petitioner is unable to execute the bail bonds because of the onerous conditions of bail imposed particularly the condition of producing 31 sureties.
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.
With these observations, the Special Leave Petitions are disposed off.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of."
Referring the aforesaid judgment, he submits that Hon'ble Apex Court has held that where an accused is enlarged on bail and he is unable to execute the bail-bonds because of the onerous conditions of bail imposed particularly in several cases then the such an accused can be released on bail by accepting one personal bond and two sureties.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the contention aforesaid.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of records, it is evident that the present applicant has been enlarged on bail in all the six cases and, as such, 12 sureties and 6 bail bonds is required to be submitted. Further, it has specifically been mentioned that the applicant-accused is not in a position to furnish personal bond and sureties in each and every cases. The ratio of the judgment in case of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh (supra) also supports the version of the present applicant.
In such view of the submissions, it is provided that the applicant shall furnish a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in any one case and the same shall be treated to be valid in all other cases when the bail are been granted.
With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant application is disposed off.
Order Date :- 6.8.2022
Ashutosh
