Mangal @ Monu v. State of U.P

Court No. - 86 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43053 of 2023 Applicant :- Mangal @ Monu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Adesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶1Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is permitted to mention the date, since the applicant is in jail, in the memo of the application, during the course of the day.

¶2Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

¶3This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to direct the court below to accept the personal bond and two surety in one case treating the same for all the three cases i.e. (1) Case Crime No. 89 of 2022, under Sections 2/3 of Gangsters Act, Police Station Civil Lines, District Muzaffar Nagar (2) Case Crime No. 263 of 2021, under Sections 3/25/27 of Arms Act, Police Station Civil Lines, District Muzaffar Nagar (3) Case Crime No. 262 of 2021, under Section 307 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, District Muzaffar Nagar and also to direct for releasing the applicant from jail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, which may hold good for all the three cases, in which, the applicant has been implicated.

¶4Facts, as are not in dispute, are that the applicant was initially implicated in a case being Case Crime No. 262 of 2021, under Section 307 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, District Muzaffar Nagar and after his arrest in the said case, he has applied for bail, which has been granted by the court below.

¶5It is stated that subsequent thereto, the applicant has been implicated in two other cases of similar nature in the same district, details whereof are given in prayer clause 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 six sureties, he has yet not been released from jail and incarcerated in jail since 29.09.2021.

¶6Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been enlarged on bail in all the three cases, but the routine direction is to furnish two sureties each in all the three matters. It is submitted that the applicant is a poor person and has no means to arrange for six 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 has been placed upon an order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 8914-8915 of 2018 (Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh), 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."

¶7Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that the applicant is implicated in the three different cases instituted against him in the same police station of District Muzaffar Nagar. This Court finds substance in the applicant's counsel contention that arranging for separate sureties in respect of three cases would be difficult particularly as the offences though distinct but are similar in nature.

¶8In the facts of the case, it is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail in all the three cases as per the description given in prayer clause of the present application, upon the applicant furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties of the same amount (one surety should be of family member of the applicant) and the same bond shall hold good for all the three cases.

¶9There shall be two sureties, who shall execute the bond of the aforesaid amount and the same shall hold good for all the three cases. Bail orders of the said cases are modified to the above extent.

¶10With the aforesaid directions, the present application under Section 482 CrPC stands disposed of. Order Date :- 2.12.2023 Nadim High Court of Judicature at Allahabad