Punjab-Haryana High Court
Salim @ Saleem And Another vs State Of Haryana on 1 December, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:152985
CRM-M No.60256 of 2023 -1- 2023:PHHC:152985
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
107. CRM-M No.60256 of 2023
Date of Decision:01.12.2023
Salim @ Saleem and another ... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana ... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Nikhil Mittal, Advocate
for the petitioners.
***
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioners have approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for
issuance of direction to the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate for waiving the
condition of furnishing one surety each in the sum of `50,000/- in every case and
to permit the petitioners to furnish single surety bond in all seven FIR cases
pending against them.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that the petitioners
have been falsely implicated and seven FIRs have been registered against them
under Section 136 of the Electricity Act. It is further contended that petitioners
are not named in the FIR. The petitioners belong to poor strata of society and
they are daily wagers. No stolen articles were recovered from them and
therefore, imposing the condition of furnishing one surety each in a sum of
`50,000/- in every case is too onerous. Reliance has been placed upon the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal
(Crl.) No.8914-8915 of 2018 titled as Hani Nishan @ Mohammad Imran @
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:152985
CRM-M No.60256 of 2023 -2- 2023:PHHC:152985
Vicky Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh on 29.10.2018 where in identical situation
following observation was made:-
"Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner is said to have been involved in 31 criminal cases for
various offences.
The Trial Court granted bail in all the 31 cases by different orders
inter alia on condition of arranging two sureties each in all the cases.
The petitioner moved the High Court under Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, contending that it was impossible for the
petitioner to arrange 62 sureties.
It is the case of the petitioner that the High Court had in similar
circumstances granted bail to the petitioner with two sureties of Rs.
1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) in the case under Gangster Act and the
same sureties were to be the sureties in all other cases as well, by an order
dated 21.9.2017. The petitioner was directed to execute personal bond of
Rs.30,000/- in each case.
However, by the impugned order, the High Court has modified the
conditions of bail imposed by the Trial Court in the instant cases by
directing the Trial Court to accept one common surety for all the cases
and one surety each for the 31 cases.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the
Court has granted bail to the petitioner, the petitioner is unable to execute
the bail bonds because of the onerous conditions of bail imposed
particularly the condition of producing 31 sureties.
Considering the submissions, the impugned order is modified to the
extent that the petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs. 30,000/-
(Rupees Thirty thousand only) and the same bond shall hold good for all
31 cases. There shall be two sureties who shall execute the bond for Rs.
30,000/- which bond shall hold good for all the 31 cases. It is clarified that
the personal bond so executed by the Petitioner and the bond so executed
by the two sureties shall hold good for all the 31 cases.
With these observations, the Special Leave Petitions are disposed
of.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:152985
CRM-M No.60256 of 2023 -3- 2023:PHHC:152985
Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are ready to
furnish one surety with a bond of `1 lakh and also furnish a personal bond in a
sum of `1 lakh in all seven cases.
4. Notice of motion.
5. Ms. Geeta Sharma, DAG, Haryana who is present in Court, accepts notice
of behalf of the respondent-State and she is not able to controvert the factual
position.
6. With the consent of parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record
of the case, this Court finds force in the arguments made by the counsel
appearing for the petitioners and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Hani Nishan @ Mohammad Imran @ Vicky's case (supra), a
direction is issued to the trial Court that it shall accept the surety to the tune of `1
lakh, which shall be treated as a surety in all seven cases. Similarly, the
petitioners are obligated to execute a bail bond for a sum of `1 lakh, which shall
be treated a bond in all seven cases.
8. With the aforesaid direction, the present petition stands disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
December 01, 2023
Pankaj*
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:152985
3 of 3
