High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19696 of 2023 Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:129373 Applicant :- Barkat Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kant Vishwakarma,Phool Chandra Saroj Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1.Heard Mr. C.P. Pandey, holding the brief of Mr. Phool Chandra Saroj, Counsel for the applicant and learned Government Advocate for the State-respondents.
Legal Reasoning
2. The brief facts of the case are that first information report has been lodged against the unknown under Section 406 IPC in Case Crime No.817 of 2021, Police Station-Tajganj, District-Agra. During investigation of the case, applicant was implicated in the case and charge sheet was also submitted in the aforementioned case. Applicant applied for bail in the aforementioned case accordingly court concern granted bail to the applicant vide order dated 12.04.2022. Apart from aforementioned case Crime No.817 of 2021 five more cases i.e. case crime nos.23 of 2022, 44 of 2022, 547 of 2021, 60 of 2021 and 81 of 2021 were lodged against the applicant in which applicant was granted bail and the bail orders have been annexed as Annexures to the affidavit filed in support of the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Applicant filed an application that on the basis of bail bond and sureties of one case crime number the applicant be released on bail in others 5 cases treating the bail bond and sureties furnished in one case crime numbers as sufficient compliance for bail in remaining 5 cases. The chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the application filed by applicant vide order dated 29.03.2023 hence the instant Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 29.03.2023 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra in Case Crime No.817 of 2021 (State Vs. Imran and others) under Section 406 IPC, Police Station-Tajganj, District-Agra as well as for directing the concern court to consider the sureties and personal bond in one case treating the same for all the 6 criminal cases of the applicant. 3.Counsel for the applicant submitted that 6 criminal cases were lodged against the applicant in which the applicant was granted bail. He further submitted that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the sureties and bond furnished in one case be treated hold good for remaining cases. He further placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court as well as of this Court which have been annexed as Annexure Nos.13 and 14 to the instant application under section 482 Cr.P.C., in which it has been held that sureties and personal bond submitted in one case shall hold good for all remaining cases. The particular of the cases of Apex Court and this Court are as follows: (1). Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh (S.L.P. (Crl.) No(s) 8914-8915 of 2018) decided on 29.10.2018. (2). Subhash Kumar vs. State of U.P. (Application U/S 482 No.20575 of 2021) decided by this Court on 27.10.2021 (3). Sattan Yadav, Vs. State of U.P. (Application U/S 482 No.14618 of 2022) decided by this Court on13.10.2022. 4. He further submitted that impugned order has been passed in arbitrary manner without considering the ratio of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky (Supra). 5. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate for the State submitted that impugned order has been passed in accordance with law. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the both the parties and perused the record. 7. There is no dispute about the fact that applicant has been granted bail in all the 8 cases lodged against him. There is also no dispute about the fact that application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.817 of 2021 (State Vs. Imran and others) under Section 406 IPC Police Station-Tajganj, District- Agra with the prayer that sureties and bond of one case be hold good for remaining cases also, but the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra has rejected the application filed by applicant vide order dated 29.03.2023. 8. Applicant has made specific averment in paragraph No.9 of the affidavit filed in support of 482 Cr.P.C. application which runs as follows: "9. That it is relevant to mention here that the applicant is residing at Maharashtra which is distance from the Agra near about 1500 Km. in these circumstances it is very hardship for applicant to manage the surety in the local stage in entire case. Apart from this the applicant having four children and his wife is also suffering from mental disease and no other except no any other person is available for doing pairavi of the case." 9.The Apex Court in case of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky (Supra) has clearly held that same bond shall hold good for all 31 cases. The relevant paragraph of the judgment are as follows: "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.
Legal Reasoning
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.
Decision
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. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of." 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky (Supra) the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant is allowed and the impugned order dated 29.03.2023 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate in case crime No.817 of 2021 (State Vs. Imran and others) is set aside. It is further directed that applicant shall furnish personal bond and sureties in one case which shall hold good for remaining seven cases also and the same shall deemed to be adequate compliance of all the bail orders. Order Date :- 28.6.2023 PS* Digitally signed by :- PRITI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad