High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri S. A. Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the respondents.

2. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in both the cases and the parties are also the same, as such, both the petitions are being heard together and disposed of by this common order.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is Managing Director of M/s A.S. . Lucknow which deals with the property and real estate. it has further been submitted that opposite party No.2 / complainant had approached the petitioner to sell different plots of land to him and Rs.50 lakhs was received by the petitioner in installment against which he took two cheques drawn on by ICICI, Kolkata signed by the petitioner which were to be handed over to the proposed dealer for purchasing of the said land. Subsequently it seems that a dispute has arisen out between the parties resulting in complaints being made in both the aforesaid petitions and the petitioner had handed over two cheques of Rs.2.5 crores drawn on 19.7.2019 which was presented by the complainant in the bank on 28.9.2019 and the same was dishonored and returned back. it is further alleged that despite notice having been given to the petitioner he did not pay the amount and accordingly the said complaint was lodged on 11.12.2019.

4. The petitioner after receipt of the summons had put in appearance before the trial court and was granted bail by means of order dated 2.1.2025 as under:- ^^i=koyh is’k gqbZ foi{kh vf/k0 us tekur izkFkZuk i= izLrqr U;k;k0 }kjk i= tekur ij vkns’k ikfjr :0 50000@& ds nks cU/k i= ij Lohd`r ,d te0 mifLFkr nwljs ds izkFkZuk i= le; iznku fd;k x;k i=koyh okLrs tekurnkj dks izzLrqr djkus gsrq fu;r frfFk dks is’k gksA** - 2 -

5. Though the petitioner has assailed the entire proceedings but after arguing the matter at some length submits that the amount of sureties to be furnished for the purposes of bail is Rs.50,000/- each as fixed by the trial court which is highly excessive. In both the said cases the petitioner has already filed sureties of Rs.25,000/- each and taken time to arrange for the rest amount but despite his best efforts he has neither furnished the remaining sureties of Rs.25,000/- each in both the cases and confines his prayer for a suitable direction to the trial court to accept the sureties as already furnished by him in pursuance of the bail order dated 2.1.2025. It has been submitted that it is only on account of the fact that the petitioner despite the time having been granted by the trial court did not furnish the entire amount of sureties and accordingly non - bailable warrants have been issued on 9.1.2025.

6. He further submits that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky vs. The State of U.P. vide order dated 29th October, 2018 passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No(s). 8914-8915 of 2018 has directed that the learned trial court to accept the sureties and personal bond in one case and treat the same for all other case, so the same benefit may also be extended to the applicant.

7. Learned Additional Government Advocate has not disputed the aforesaid legal position being settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

8. Law with regard to bails has been repeatedly clarified by the Supreme Court wherein it has been held that the amount of sureties should not be excessive so as to deny the very purpose of grant of bail. The purpose of imposing sureties is to secure appearance of the accused during the course of trial but the amount of sureties has to be in conformity looking into the nature of dispute as well as status of the accused and his financial capacity. In the case of Girish Gandhi v. State of U.P., (2024) 10 SCC 674 it has been held as under :- “25. From time immemorial, the principle has been that the excessive bail is no bail. To grant bail and thereafter to impose excessive and onerous conditions, is to take away with the left hand, what is given with the right. As to what is excessive will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.”

9. In the present case, there is no dispute that the petitioner has been granted bail on his furnishing sureties of Rs.50,000/- each but despite grant of bail on 2.1.2025 the petitioner has not been able to furnish sureties though he has already furnished the sureties of fifty percent of the amount as directed by the trial court. - 3-

10. Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as in the light of Hon'ble Apex Court's order passed in Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh passed in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) 8914-8915/2018, it is provided that the amount of sureties of Rs.25,000/- each already filed by the applicant in both the cases shall be accepted by the rial court treating the same to be in compliance of the bail order dated 2.1.2025 as full amount of sureties.

11. In view of the above, both the petitions are allowed. The impugned N.B.W. order dated 9.1.2025 issued by Additional Judge, Court No.9, Lucknow in Crl. Complaint No.11768 of 2019 (Tariq Ali Vs. Sukanta Subrata Banarjee) is set aside. Order Date :- 27.3.2025 RKM. (Alok Mathur, J.) RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri S. A. Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the respondents.

2. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in both the cases and the parties are also the same, as such, both the petitions are being heard together and disposed of by this common order.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is Managing Director of M/s A.S. . Lucknow which deals with the property and real estate. it has further been submitted that opposite party No.2 / complainant had approached the petitioner to sell different plots of land to him and Rs.50 lakhs was received by the petitioner in installment against which he took two cheques drawn on by ICICI, Kolkata signed by the petitioner which were to be handed over to the proposed dealer for purchasing of the said land. Subsequently it seems that a dispute has arisen out between the parties resulting in complaints being made in both the aforesaid petitions and the petitioner had handed over two cheques of Rs.2.5 crores drawn on 19.7.2019 which was presented by the complainant in the bank on 28.9.2019 and the same was dishonored and returned back. it is further alleged that despite notice having been given to the petitioner he did not pay the amount and accordingly the said complaint was lodged on 11.12.2019.

4. The petitioner after receipt of the summons had put in appearance before the trial court and was granted bail by means of order dated 2.1.2025 as under:- ^^i=koyh is’k gqbZ foi{kh vf/k0 us tekur izkFkZuk i= izLrqr U;k;k0 }kjk i= tekur ij vkns’k ikfjr :0 50000@& ds nks cU/k i= ij Lohd`r ,d te0 mifLFkr nwljs ds izkFkZuk i= le; iznku fd;k x;k i=koyh okLrs tekurnkj dks izzLrqr djkus gsrq fu;r frfFk dks is’k gksA** - 2 -

5. Though the petitioner has assailed the entire proceedings but after arguing the matter at some length submits that the amount of sureties to be furnished for the purposes of bail is Rs.50,000/- each as fixed by the trial court which is highly excessive. In both the said cases the petitioner has already filed sureties of Rs.25,000/- each and taken time to arrange for the rest amount but despite his best efforts he has neither furnished the remaining sureties of Rs.25,000/- each in both the cases and confines his prayer for a suitable direction to the trial court to accept the sureties as already furnished by him in pursuance of the bail order dated 2.1.2025. It has been submitted that it is only on account of the fact that the petitioner despite the time having been granted by the trial court did not furnish the entire amount of sureties and accordingly non - bailable warrants have been issued on 9.1.2025.

6. He further submits that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky vs. The State of U.P. vide order dated 29th October, 2018 passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No(s). 8914-8915 of 2018 has directed that the learned trial court to accept the sureties and personal bond in one case and treat the same for all other case, so the same benefit may also be extended to the applicant.

7. Learned Additional Government Advocate has not disputed the aforesaid legal position being settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

8. Law with regard to bails has been repeatedly clarified by the Supreme Court wherein it has been held that the amount of sureties should not be excessive so as to deny the very purpose of grant of bail. The purpose of imposing sureties is to secure appearance of the accused during the course of trial but the amount of sureties has to be in conformity looking into the nature of dispute as well as status of the accused and his financial capacity. In the case of Girish Gandhi v. State of U.P., (2024) 10 SCC 674 it has been held as under :- “25. From time immemorial, the principle has been that the excessive bail is no bail. To grant bail and thereafter to impose excessive and onerous conditions, is to take away with the left hand, what is given with the right. As to what is excessive will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.”

9. In the present case, there is no dispute that the petitioner has been granted bail on his furnishing sureties of Rs.50,000/- each but despite grant of bail on 2.1.2025 the petitioner has not been able to furnish sureties though he has already furnished the sureties of fifty percent of the amount as directed by the trial court. - 3-

10. Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as in the light of Hon'ble Apex Court's order passed in Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh passed in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) 8914-8915/2018, it is provided that the amount of sureties of Rs.25,000/- each already filed by the applicant in both the cases shall be accepted by the rial court treating the same to be in compliance of the bail order dated 2.1.2025 as full amount of sureties.

11. In view of the above, both the petitions are allowed. The impugned N.B.W. order dated 9.1.2025 issued by Additional Judge, Court No.9, Lucknow in Crl. Complaint No.11768 of 2019 (Tariq Ali Vs. Sukanta Subrata Banarjee) is set aside. Order Date :- 27.3.2025 RKM. (Alok Mathur, J.) RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench