Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. BANUMATHI, INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.
Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 8914-8915 of 2018 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 08-05-2018 in CRLMC No. 2738/2018 16-08-2018 in CRLMA No. 87890/2018 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad, Lucknow Bench)
Decided On : 29-10-2018
Bail Conditions - Criminal Cases - The court modified the bail conditions imposed by the Trial Court, allowing the petitioner to execute a personal bond for all 31 cases with two sureties for a specified amount.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was involved in 31 criminal cases and was granted bail in all cases with the condition of arranging two sureties for each case. The petitioner found it impossible to arrange 62 sureties and moved the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court modified the bail conditions, allowing the petitioner to execute a personal bond for all 31 cases with two sureties for a specified amount, thereby relieving the petitioner from the onerous condition of producing 31 sureties.
Issues: The issue was whether the bail conditions imposed by the Trial Court, requiring the petitioner to arrange two sureties for each of the 31 cases, were reasonable and feasible.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the practical difficulties faced by the petitioner in arranging 62 sureties and modified the bail conditions to alleviate the burden on the petitioner while ensuring compliance with the bail requirements.
Final Decision: The Special Leave Petitions were disposed of, and the modified bail conditions allowed the petitioner to execute a personal bond for all 31 cases with two sureties for a specified amount, relieving the petitioner from the onerous condition of producing 31 sureties.
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner is said to have been involved in 31 criminal cases for various offences.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. With these observations, the Special Leave Petitions are disposed of.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
