Allahabad High Court
Harpal Alias Chhotey Alias Jojo vs State Of U.P. on 2 August, 2023
Bench: Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:156081
Court No. - 89
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27913 of 2023
Applicant :- Harpal Alias Chhotey Alias Jojo
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Kumar Kesari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed with a prayer that a direction be issued to concerned trial court for permitting the applicant to execute one personal bond and two sureties in all the cases, in which applicant has been enlarged on bail.
3. Record shows that applicant has been enlarged on bail in different case crime numbers by this Hon'ble Court, as well as trial court, vide following orders:-
(i) Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 56720 of 2022 (Harpal @ Chhotey @ Jojo), vide order dated 12.12.2022.
(ii) Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 697 of 2023 (Harpal @ Chhotey @ Jojo), vide order dated 16.2.2023
(iii) Bail Application No. 5451 of 2022 (Harpal @ Chhotey @ Jojo), vide order dated 13.9.2022.
(iv) Bail Application No. 5842 of 2022 (Harpal @ Chhotey @ Jojo), vide order dated 3.11.2022.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was unable to arrange eight sureties due to the reason that applicant is hailing from Bulandshahar and the case was registered at Gautam Budhnagar. Applicant has not yet been released on bail as applicant has failed to furnish surety bonds in all the cases. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is thus urged that applicant be directed to furnish a common personal bond and common surety bonds of like amount in all the cases. In support of his contention learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgments passed by Apex Court in the case of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky vs. State of U.P., vide order dated 29.10.2018 and in Ramwati Awasthi and others vs. State of U.P. and others, wherein the Court has modified the conditions of bail by providing that the personal bond and two sureties furnished by applicant be accepted in all the cases pending against the applicant.
4. On the aforesaid factual and legal premises, it is urged that present application be allowed and two sureties furnished by applicant in one case case crime number be accepted as sureties in all the cases.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer and submitted that the applicant is a hardcore criminal and he is involved in anti-social activities. He is having a criminal history of four cases, which is evident from the bail orders, hence the applicant's prayer is liable to be rejected.
6. After having very carefully examined, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on record, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court finds that the applicant is involved in heinous offence and is in position to furnish bail bonds, hence this Court is not inclined to grant relief to the applicant in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky (supra) and Ramwati Awasthi (supra).
7. The application lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 2.8.2023
Faridul
