Kaleem @ Bihari v. State of U.P
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 s. 528
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ss. 109, 303(2), 317(2)
- Arms Act, 1959 ss. 3, 25, 27
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 379
- 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. 01 lakh and two sureties as per the bail granting order dated 03.09.2024 in Case Crime No. 74 of 2024, U/s 109, 317(2) BNS, and section 3/25/27 Arms…
Judgment
Applicant :- Kaleem @ Bihari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Kumar Tiwari, Sanjay Kr. Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present application under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 has been filed with a prayer to allow the applicant to submit a personal bond and two sureties in five cases which would be sufficient in all the cases in which the applicant has been granted bail, (1) Case Crime No. 73 of 2024, U/s 303(2), 317(2) of BNS, 2023, P.S. Shikheda, District Muzaffar Nagar (released on bail on 18.09.2024), (2) Case Crime No. 74 of 2024, U/s 109, 317(2) BNS, and section 3/25/27 Arms Act, P.S. Shikheda, District Muzaffar Nagar, (released on bail on 03.09.2024), (3) Case Crime No. 61 of 2024, U/s 303(2) BNS, 2023, P.S. Shikheda, District Muzaffar Nagar (released on bail on 04.09.2024), (4) Case Crime No. 66 of 2024, U/s 303(2) BNS, 2023, P.S. Ramraj, District Muzaffar Nagar, (released on bail on 02.09.2024) and (5) Case Crime No. 37 of 2024, U/s 379 I.P.C, P.S. Phugana, District Muzaffar Nagar, (released on bail on 09.09.2024).
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.
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.
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 it 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. "
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.
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.
In view of the above, the applicant is permitted to execute a personal bond of Rs. 01 lakh and two sureties as per the bail granting order dated 03.09.2024 in Case Crime No. 74 of 2024, U/s 109, 317(2) BNS, and section 3/25/27 Arms Act, P.S. Shikheda, District Muzaffar Nagar, out of five orders dated 18.09.2024, 03.09.2024, 04.09.2024, 02.09.2024, 09.09.2024 and 09.09.2024 and the same shall hold good for all these five cases.
With the aforesaid observation/direction, the petition is disposed off. Order Date :- 25.10.2024 Bhanu
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — ss. 109, 303(2), 317(2); Arms Act, 1959 — ss. 3, 25, 27; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 379; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 440, 445.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Allahabad High Court, on 25 Oct 2024.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.