Brijendra Singh Rajpoot v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Court No. - 28 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11272 of 2023 Applicant :- Brijendra Singh Rajpoot Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Durgesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶1At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he may be permitted to correct the memo of the application during the course of the day.

¶2Learned counsel appearing for the State has no objection for the contention aforesaid.

¶3In view of the aforesaid, counsel for the applicant is permitted to correct the memo of the application during the course of the day.

¶4Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶5By means of the instant applicant, the applicant has prayed that this Court may be pleased to direct the learned Court below not to insist the petitioner to file separate sureties and bonds in each and every four cases and accept only two sureties and one personal bond in lieu of all four cases.

¶6The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that it has become impossible for the applicant to submit separate sureties and bonds in each of cases, in which, he has been granted bail. He added that the applicant has been granted bail in four cases arising out of following Case Crime Numbers :-

¶1Case Crime No. 236 of 2017 Under Section 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 409 1.P.C., Police Station Vibhuti Khand, District-Lucknow. ii. Case Crime No. 511 of 2022 Under Section 406, 419, 420, 506, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Ashiyana, District-Lucknow. iii. Complaint Case No. 64963 of 2021 Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, Police Station Ashiyana, District-Lucknow. iv. Case Crime No. 420 of 2019 Under Section 409, 420, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Vibhuti Khand, District-Lucknow.

¶7He next added that despite the Trial Court granted the bail in aforesaid matters, the applicant is still in jail. Being poor person, he is unable to produce the sureties in each cases. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that in similar circumstances, namely, in the case of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh [SLP (Crl.) No.8914-8915/2018] the Supreme Court vide order dated 29.10.2018 has permitted the petitioner to submit separate personal bonds and two sureties of heavy amount to hold good in all the cases.

¶8Referring the aforesaid judgement and order, he submits that the applicant may also be given the benefit of the ratio of the judgement passed in Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky (supra).

¶9Considering the aforesaid fact, the petition is disposed off with a direction to the applicant to furnish a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of the like amount in one case, which shall be treated to be valid in all other cases wherein the bail orders have been passed. Order Date :- 9.11.2023 -Amit K-High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench