Shahrukh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home
2024 Latest Caselaw 19723 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Shahrukh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home on 29 May, 2024

Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar

Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:40781
 
Court No. - 15
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4936 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Shahrukh
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Rizwanul Haque Ansari,Mohd Javed,Santi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. 
 

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and 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 seven cases and accept only two sureties in lieu of seven cases.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the cases shown in paragraph 6 of the application. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been released on bail in following cases:-

1. Case Crime No.355/2021 Under Section U/s-3/5/8 U.P Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station and District Pisawan/Sitapur

2. Case Crime No.53/2022 U/s-25(1-B) Arms Act, Police Station Machhrahta /Sitapur

3. Case Crime No.48/2022 307 IPC, Police Station Machhrahta /Sitapur

4. Case Crime No.65/2022 307 IPC Police Station Maholi/Sitapur

5. Case Crime No.59/2022 U/s-3/5/8 U.P Prevention of Cow Police Station Maholi/Sitapur

6. Case Crime No. 44/2022 Slaughter Act U/s-3/5/8 U.P Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act

7. Case Crime No. 01/2023 2/3(1), U.P. Gangster Act Rampur Kalan/ Sitapur.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that due to poor financial condition, the applicant is not in a position to manage sureties in seven cases. He seeks benefit of judgment passed by Hon'ble 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 seven cases, above mentioned, in which the bail orders have been passed.

With these observations, the petition is disposed of.

Order Date :- 29.5.2024

Madhu