Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAJEEV MISRA, J.
Rajesh Khantwal – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Application U/S 482 No. 5444 of 2021
Decided On : 06-08-2021
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Release on bail - Separate personal bonds - Counsel for applicant contends that applicant is unable to arrange sureties - Consequently in spite of fact that applicant has been released on bail all criminal cases pending against him applicant has yet not been released on bail as applicant has failed to furnish separate surety bonds in all cases - In facts and circumstances case it is thus urged that applicant be directed to furnish common personal bond and common surety bonds of like amount in all cases - He therefore contends that appropriate direction in light of above be issued in exercise of jurisdiction under Section – Held, When any person is required by any Court or officer to execute bond with or without sureties such Court or officer may except in case of bond for good behavior permit him to deposit sum of money or Government promissory notes to such amount as Court or officer may fix in lieu of executing such bond - Aforesaid factual and legal premise counsel for applicant contends that such conditions which commensurate with facts and circumstances of present case are liable to be imposed so that applicant who has been granted bail in all cases pending against him is ultimately bailed out - Wherein Court has been modified conditions of bail by providing that personal bond and two sureties furnished by applicant be accepted in all cases pending against applicant - Photocopies of above orders have been supplied by counsel for applicant which are taken on record - Order accordingly
JUDGMENT :
RAJEEV MISRA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.
2. Perused the record.
3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for a direction to court below to accept the two sureties submitted on behalf of applicant as sureties in all the cases in which applicant has been enlarged on bail.
4. Record shows that applicant has been enlarged on bail in different case crime number by this Court vide following orders:-
(ii) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 32006 of 2020 (Rajesh Khantwal vs. State of U.P.) vide order dated 06.10.2020.
(iii) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 35313 of 2020 (Rajesh Khantwal vs. State of U.P.) vide order dated 19.10.2020.
(iv) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 35476 of 2020 (Rajesh Khantwal vs. State of U.P.) vide order dated 20.10.2020.
(v) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 31613 of 2020 (Rajesh Khantwal vs. State of U.P.) vide order dated 05.10.2020.
(vi) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 35324 of 2020 (Rajesh Khantwal vs. State of U.P.) vide order dated 22.10.2020.
(vii) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 35461 of 2020 (Rajesh Khantwal vs. State of U.P.) vide order dated 20.10.2020.
(viii) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 35221 of 2020 (Rajesh Khantwal vs. State of U.P.) vide order dated 19.10.2020.
(ix) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 35248 of 2020 (Rajesh Khantwal vs. State of U.P.) vide order dated 19.10.2020.
(x) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 31626 of 2020 (Rajesh Khantwal vs. State of U.P.) vide order dated 05.10.2020.
(xi) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 35115 of 2020 (Rajesh Khantwal vs. State of U.P.) vide order dated 19.10.2020.
(xii) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 31618 of 2020 (Rajesh Khantwal vs. State of U.P.) vide order dated 05.10.2020.
(xiii) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 35313 of 2020 (Rajesh Khantwal vs. State of U.P.) vide order dated 19.10.2020.
5. Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant is unable to arrange 26 sureties. Consequently, in spite of the fact that applicant has been released on bail in all 13 criminal cases pending against him, applicant has yet not been released on bail as applicant has failed to furnish separate surety bonds in all the cases. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is thus urged that applicant be directed to furnish a common personal bond and common surety bonds of like amount in all the cases. He therefore contends that appropriate direction, in the light of above, be issued in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
6. He has then referred to Sections 439, 440, 441, 441A, 442, 443, 444 and 445 Cr.P.C. and on basis thereof contents that under the scheme of Cr.P.C. (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) there is no mandatory requirement of furnishing separate personal bonds as well as surety bonds for seeking enlargement on bail in different case crime numbers. For ready reference, same are reproduced herein-under:
(1) A High Court or Court of Session may direct:
(a) that any person accused of an offence and in custody be released on bail, and if the offence is of the nature specified in sub-section (3) of section 437, may impose any condition which it considers necessary for the purposes mentioned in that subsection.
(b) that any condition imposed by a Magistrate when releasing an person on bail be set aside or modified:
Provided that the High Court or the Court of Session shall, before granting bail to a person who is accused of an offence which is triable exclusively by the Court of Session or which, though not so triable, is punishable with imprisonment for life, give notice of the application for bail to the Public Prosecutor unless it is, for reasons to be recorded in writing, of opinion that it is not practicable to give such noti
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
