The case is called out.
The present application is moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C., invoking the discretionary power of the Court to allow the applicant to submit a personal bond and two sureties in all the cases in which he has been granted bails from the competent courts.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated by the police after taking into custody in four cases as enumerated in para 8 of the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., reproduced hereunder :-
i) Case Crime No.400/2020, under Section 392 of I.P.C., registered at Police Station Chowk, District Lucknow.
ii) Case Crime No.400/2020, under Section 411 of I.P.C., registered at Police Station Chowk, District Lucknow.
iii) Case Crime No.06/2021, under Sections 411/120B of I.P.C., registered at Police Station Hasanganj, District Lucknow.
iv) Case Crime No.33/2020, under Sections 394/307/401 of I.P.C., registered at Police Station Indira Nagar, District Lucknow.
It is further submitted that applicant is a poor person, not in a position to arrange two sureties for each case separately and if suitable direction be not given to the trial court, he, despite the fact court has ordered his release on bail, may remain in jail for a long period.
In the above context, learned counsel submits that the applicant is in jail and he is not in a position to furnish eight sureties. He has relied on the decision of Hon'ble the Apex court in the case of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikki Vs. State of U.P. passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.8914-8915 of 2018 in which Hon'ble the Apex Court has permitted the applicant of that case to file personal bond and two sureties only and his personal bond and sureties will apply in all the cases. Likewise, the applicant may also be permitted to file a personal bond and two sureties that would be applicable to aforesaid cases pending against him.
Opposing the prayer of the applicant, learned A.G.A. submitted that it is always the discretion and satisfaction of the concerned trial court so far as, the acceptance of the surety is concerned.
From the rival contentions of the parties to the case, it comes out that the only grievance of the applicant seems to be that, he despite the fact, ordered to be released on bail by the competent court in all the four cases against him, is unable to come out of the prison, only for the reason, he is unable to arrange separate sureties for each of the above stated cases. This is why, he has made prayer in the present application that, he be allowed to present same sureties in all the four cases and learned trial court be directed accordingly.
It appears from the pleading of the applicant that he never approached to the Court concerned with the prayer to observe the finding given by Hon'ble the Supreme Court with request to accept one surety in each cases.
The acceptance of the sureties and verification of them is undoubtedly, the prerogative of the concerned trial court, which could not be and should not be controlled by this court. On it's administration side, the High Court has issued guideline in this regard from time to time, to be observed by the courts below.
However, the procedure is hand maid of justice, it cannot override the imparting of justice by the Court, therefore, keeping in view the fact that the applicant by reason of his social status or poverty is not in a position to arrange separate sureties for all the four cases, the procedural stiffness may be relaxed.
In the above context, it would be pertinent here to look into the provision of Section 441-A of the Cr.P.C. cited hereunder:-
"Declaration by sureties" :- "Every person standing surety to an accused person for his release on bail, shall make a declaration before the Court as to the number of persons to whom he has stood surety including the accused, giving therein all the relevant particulars."
This provision, introduced in the Cr.P.C. by amendment in the year 2000, makes it clear that a person may present himself as surety for more than one accused person, in more than one case. Therefore, obviously there is no bar for a person to present himself as surety in more than one case as well as, for more than one accused persons. However, the status verification and the competency of the surety will always be assessed by the court to it's satisfaction before accepting it.
It is therefore directed that, if the same sureties are placed before the trial court and they are otherwise competent and their status and other particulars of credence have been verified to it's satisfaction, the trial court in it's discretion may accept the same.
With the aforesaid directions, the application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 23.2.2021 Saurabh