Allahabad High Court
Azeem And Another vs State Of U.P. on 1 February, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:18772
Court No. - 92
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 385 of 2024
Applicant :- Azeem And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Shubham Kesarwani
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard Sri Shubham Kesarwani, learned counsel for the applicants 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 to direct the Court below to accept two surety in all cases being; (1) Case Crime No. 279 of 2023, under Section 379 I.P.C., Police station Civil Lines, District Muzaffarnagar, (2) Case Crime No. 276 of 2023, under Sections 380, 457 I.P.C., Police Station Civil Lines, District Muzaffarnagar, (3) Case Crime No. 483 of 2023, under Section 380, 457 I.P.C. and Section 4/25 Arms Act, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Muzaffarnagar, (4) Case Crime No. 561 of 2023, under Section 2/3 U.P. Gangster Act, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Muzaffarnagar. It is stated that the applicants have been granted bail in all the aforesaid cases.The applicant no. 1 has been granted bail vide orders dated 23.11.2023, 04.12.2023, 22.11.2023, 14.12.2023 and 18.12.2023 and applicant no. 2 has been granted bail vide orders dated 03.10.2023, 17.10.2023, 10.10.2023 and 07.12.2023. All the bail orders have been brought on record as Annexures-4 and 5 to the application,
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that it is impossible for the applicants to submit separate sureties in each cases and for this reason despite having been granted bail in all the aforesaid cases, the applicants are in jail inasmuch as the applicants being poor persons are unable to produce the sureties in each case separately.
4. 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."
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the applicants are permitted to execute a personal bond and two sureties as per any one bail granting order out of four orders, namely, dated 23.11.2023, 04.12.2023, 22.11.2023, 14.12.2023 and 18.12.2023 for applicant no. 1 and dated 03.10.2023, 17.10.2023, 10.10.2023 and 07.12.2023 for applicant no. 2, and the same shall hold good for all the aforesaid cases.
8. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the petition is disposed off.
Order Date :- 1.2.2024
P.Sri.
