Mohd. Rehan vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 17794 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Mohd. Rehan vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, ... on 17 May, 2024

Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar

Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:37888
 
Court No. - 15
 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4572 of 2024
 
Applicant :- Mohd. Rehan
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Prateek Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
 

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to direct the learned trial court not to insist the applicant to file separate surety bonds in each and every four cases and accept only one surety in lieu of four cases.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the cases shown in paragraph 3 of the application. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been released on bail in following cases:-

(i) Crime No. 149 of 2022, under Section 401 Indian Penal Code and Section 4/25 Arms Act, Police Station Gosaiganj, District Lucknow.

(ii) Crime No.32 of 2022, under Section 379 Indian Penal Code and Section 3/5/8 UP Cow Slaughter Act 1955, Police station Nagram, District Lucknow.

(iii) Crime No.51 of 2022, under Section 379 Indian Penal Code and Section 3/5/8 UP Cow Slaughter Act 1955, Police station Nagram, District Lucknow..

(iv) Crime No.145 of 2022, under Section 379 Indian Penal Code and Section 3/5/8 UP Cow Slaughter Act 1955, Police station Gosaiganj, District Lucknow.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that due to poor financial condition, the applicant is not in a position to manage sureties in four cases. He seeks 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.

Opposing the prayer of the applicant, 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 applicant may furnish a personal bond and two sureties which shall be treated to be valid in all the four cases above mentioned in which the bail orders have been passed.

With these observations, the petition is disposed of.

Order Date :- 17.5.2024

Madhu