AFR Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:11456 Court No. - 68 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29850 of 2020 Applicant :- Sreedhaar Prasad Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

In Ref.: Criminal Misc. Modification Application This is an application seeking modification of the order dated 12.10.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 29850 of 2020 to the extent of removing the condition of one family member as a surety and direct the release of the applicant on his furnishing a personal bond along with any two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned or pass any other and further orders in the interest of applicant considering the present facts and circumstances of the case.

It is contended that the applicant filed Criminal Misc. Bail Application aforementioned seeking regular bail in Case Crime No. 0816 of 2017, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120-B IPC and Section 66 of Information Technology Act, Police Station Kotwali City, District Bijnore. This Court vide order dated 12.10.2020 was pleased to enlarge the applicant on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1 Lac with two sureties (one should be of his family members) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.

It has been submitted that the applicant has not been able to obtain bail on account of the fact that he has not been able to arrange a family member to stand as his security as directed by this Court while granting bail vide order dated 12.10.2020 and has been languishing in jail since 15.07.2019. His father has expired and his family comprises of his Mother and Wife, who are home makers and two daughters, one of whom is working in Vishakhapatnam and the other studying in Mumbai.

Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the Apex Court decision in the case of Rakesh Kumar Paul Vs. State of Assam reported in 2017(15) SCC 67 to buttress the point that in matters of personal liberty and Article 21 of the Constitution of India it is not always advisable to be formalistic or technical and the bail order is liable to be modified as prayed to enable the applicant to avail the benefit of the bail order. Placing further reliance upon 1980 (1) SCC 81 (Hussainara Khatoon & others Vs. Home, Secretary, State of Bihar) as also 1996 (3) SCC 422 (R. D. Upadhyay Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh). It is contended that accused lodged in jail for long time and unable to arrange sureties can be released on filing personal bonds without monetary obligations.

Learned counsel for the applicant has invited attention to Para 22 of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Girish Gandhi Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh (Writ Petition No. 149 of 2024), quoted herein-below to submit that the order dated 12.10.2020 be suitably modified.

"22. Whether it is to get individuals, to stand as a guarantor for a loan transaction or as a Surety in a criminal proceeding, the choice for a person is very limited. It will very often be a close relative or a longtime friend. In a criminal proceeding, the circle may get even more narrowed as the normal tendency is to not disclose about the said criminal proceeding to relatives and friends, to protect one's reputation. These are hard realities of life in our country and as a court of law we cannot shut our eyes to them. A solution, however, has to be found strictly within the framework of the law.

23. From time immemorial, the principle has been that the excessive bail is no bail. To grant bail and thereafter to impose excessive and onerous conditions, is to take away with the left hand, what is given with the right. As to what is excessive will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, the petitioner is experiencing a genuine difficulty in finding multiple sureties. Sureties are essential to ensure the presence of the accused, released on bail. At the same time, where the court is faced with the situation where the accused enlarged on bail