Akash v. State of U.P

Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39696 of 2023 Applicant :- Akash Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

¶2Present petition has been filed with the following prayer:-

(i) To direct the concerned court below to accept single set of sureties and bail bonds as directed in the bail orders granted to the applicant in all nine

(9) cases i.e. (1) Case Crime No. 101 of 2023, U/s 380, 457 1.P.C., P.S. Sikheda, District Muzaffar Nagar (bail granted on 18.09.2023), (2) Case Crime No. 72 of 2023, U/s 379, 411 I.P.C., P.S. Ramraj, District Muzaffar Nagar (bail granted on 25.08.2023), (3) Case Crime No. 168-of 2023, U/s 379 I.P.C., P.S. Titavi, District Muzaffar Nagar (bail granted on 25.08.2023),

(4) Case Crime No. 169 of 2023, U/s 379, 411 I.P.C., P.S. Mansoorpur, District Muzaffar Nagar (bail granted on 06.10.2023), (5) Case Crime No. 181 of 2023, U/s 379, 411 I.P.C., P.S. Mansoorpur, District Muzaffar Nagar (bail granted on 22.09.2023), (6) Case Crime No. 184 of 2023, U/s 379, 411 I.P.C., P.S. Mansoorpur, District Muzaffar Nagar (bail granted on

06.10.2023), (7) Case Crime No. 167 of 2023, U/s 379, 411 I.P.C., P.S. Jansath, District Muzaffar Nagar (bail granted on 16.08.2023), (8) Case Crime No. 168 of 2023, U/s 379, 411 I.P.C., P.S. Jansath, District Muzaffar Nagar (bail granted on 16.08.2023), (9) Case Crime No. 170 of 2023, U/s 4, 25 Arms Act 1959, P.S. Jansath, District Muzaffar Nagar (bail granted on

04.08.2023)."

¶3Facts, as are not in dispute, are that the applicant was initially implicated in a case of theft being Case Crime No.170 of 2023 and after his arrest in the above case he has applied for bail which has been granted by the court below. It is alleged that subsequent in point of time the applicant has been implicated in 9 other cases of similar nature in the same district, details whereof are given in para 7 of the affidavit filed in support of the present application. Although bail orders are stated to have been passed in all cases but since the applicant has not been able to furnish sureties, he has yet not been released from jail.

¶4Counsel for the applicant states that the applicant has been enlarged on bail in all these 9 cases, but the routine direction is to furnish two sureties each in all 9 matters. It is submitted that the applicant is a poor person and has no means to arrange for sureties and that is why he has continued to remain incarcerated in jail notwithstanding grant of bail by the competent court in all matters. Reliance is placed upon an order passed by the Supreme Court in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 8914-8915/2018, which reads as under:- "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. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of."

¶5Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that the applicant is implicated in 9 different cases instituted against him in the different police stations of District Muzaffar Nagar under the offences of theft. This Court finds substance in the applicant's contention that arranging for separate sureties in respect of 9 cases would be difficult particularly as the offences though distinct but are similar in nature.

¶6In the facts of the case, this application therefore stands disposed off with the direction that the applicant shall be released on bail in all 9 cases instituted under the offences of theft, as per the description given in para 7 of the affidavit filed in support the present application, upon the applicant furnishing personal bond of Rs.1 lakh and the same bond shall hold good for all 9 cases. There shall be two sureties who shall execute the bond of the aforesaid amount and the same shall hold good for all 9 cases. Order Date :- 8.11.2023 Junaid High Court of Judicature at Allahabad