Allahabad High Court
Satish Yadav @ Babloo Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 13 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:86267
Court No. - 91
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15711 of 2024
Applicant :- Satish Yadav @ Babloo Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Abhishek Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the materials available on record.
2. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to direct the court below to accept the personal bond and two sureties in one criminal case treating the same for all five criminal cases, which are as follows:-
(i) Case Crime no.1125 of 2017, under Section 394, 411 IPC, P.S. Bahariyabad, District-Ghazipur (released on bail on 01.03.2023).
(ii) Case Crime no.1422 of 2017, under Section 392, 411 IPC, P.S. Bhudkuda, District-Ghazipur (released on bail on 28.02.2023).
(iii) Case Crime no.02 of 2018, under Section 394, 307, 411 IPC, P.S. Bahariyabad, District-Ghazipur (released on bail on 06.07.2023).
(iv) Case Crime no.04 of 2018, under Section 392, 411 IPC, P.S. Bahariyabad, District-Ghazipur (released on bail on 26.06.2020).
(v) Case Crime no.97 of 2018, under Section 3(1) U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. Bahariyabad, District-Ghazipur (released on bail on 29.03.2023).
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is impossible for the applicant to submit separate sureties in each cases in which he has been granted bail.
4. The applicant has been granted bail in all the aforesaid cases. Despite the trial Court granting him bail, the applicant is still in jail, inasmuch as, the applicant being a poor person is unable to produce the sureties in each case.
5. 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."
6. Learned counsel for the applicant also relied on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, [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.
7. 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.
8. In view of the above, the applicant is permitted to execute a personal bond and two sureties of Rs.2,00,000/-, and the same shall hold good for all the five cases.
9. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 13.5.2024
S.P.
