Samiullah Khan @ Bablu v. State of U.P & Anr.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ss. 35(1), 528
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 379, 411
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ss. 303(2), 317(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 440, 445
Key paragraphs
- Para 88. In view of the above, the applicant is permitted to execute a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties as per any one bail granting order, out of eight bail orders and the same shall hold good for all these three cases.
Judgment
#1. Heard Sri Raj Mangal Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shashidhar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State.
#2. The present petition has been filed with a prayer not to insist the applicant to file separate surety bonds in eight criminal cases and accept one surety in all the eight criminal cases whose details are as follows:- (i). Case Crime No.50 of 2024, Under Section 379,411 I.P.C., Police Station Rail Bazar, District Kanpur Nagar. (In which the applicant has been granted bail by the court below vide order dated 05.09.2024). (ii). Case Crime No.116 of 2024, Under Section 379,411 I.P.C., Police Station Rail Bazar, District Kanpur Nagar. (In which the applicant has been granted bail by the court below vide order dated 09.09.2024). (iii). Case Crime No.68 of 2024, Under Section 379,411 I.P.C., Police Station Chhawani, District Kanpur Nagar. (In which the applicant has been granted bail by the court below vide order dated 17.08.2024). (iv). Case Crime No.148 of 2024, Under Section 35 (1) B.N.S.S., 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 318 (4) B.N.S., Police Station Jajmau, District Kanpur Nagar. (In which the applicant has been granted bail by the court below vide order dated 18.09.2024). (v). Case Crime No.111 of 2024, Under Section 379,411 I.P.C., Police Station Jajmau, District Kanpur Nagar. (In which the applicant has been granted bail by the court below vide order dated 03.08.2024). (vi). Case Crime No.147 of 2024, Under Section 303(2),317 (2) B.N.S., Police Station Jajmau, District Kanpur Nagar. (In which the applicant has been granted bail by the court below vide order dated 07.09.2024). (vii). Case Crime No.74 of 2024, Under Section 379,411 I.P.C., Police Station Jajmau, District Kanpur Nagar. (In which the applicant has been granted bail by the court below vide order dated 29.08.2024). (viii).Case Crime No.145 of 2024, Under Section 303 (2), 317 (2) B.N.S., Police Station Jajmau, District Kanpur Nagar. (In which the applicant has been granted bail by the court below vide order dated 31.08.2024).
#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 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 case of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky Vs. The State of Uttar Praesh [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 of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties as per any one bail granting order, out of eight bail orders and the same shall hold good for all these three cases.
#9. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the petition is disposed off. Order Date :- 25.10.2024
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — ss. 35(1), 528; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 379, 411; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — ss. 303(2), 317(2); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 440, 445.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Allahabad High Court, on 25 Oct 2024. The bench was PRASHANT KUMAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.