The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, while disposing of an application, has observed that the texture of Section 441-A of the CrPC, which has been introduced by way of amendment made in 2006, clearly reflects that a person may stand surety for more than one accused person and in more than one case.

“However, the status, verification and the competency of surety will always be assessed by the trial court before acceptance,” ruled the Single-Judge Bench of Justice Mohd Faiz Alam Khan on an application filed by one Abhishek Kumar Shukla.

The application filed under Section 482 CrPC has requested to direct the Court below not to insist the applicant to file separate surety bonds in three criminal cases and accept one surety in lieu of all three cases mentioned below.

The applicant has stated to be involved in following three cases and obtained bail orders:

(1) Case Crime No 415/2022, under Sections 379, 411 IPC, Police Station Gazipur, District Lucknow.

(2) Case Crime No 461/2022, under Sections 392, 411 IPC, Police Station Gazipur, District Lucknow.

(3) Case Crime No 422/2022, under Sections 392, 411 IPC, Police Station Sushant Golf City, District Lucknow.

Counsel for the applicant submitted that three false cases were registered against the applicant and in all those cases, the applicant has been directed to be released on bail by the competent Courts, however, the applicant is having every apprehension that, if the same sureties will be placed in all the cases pending before the trial Court, the same would not be accepted by the trial Court, and despite the applicant has been directed to be released on bail, he will not come out of the prison, because he will not be in a position to arrange separate set of sureties for each case.

Therefore, it is submitted that the trial Court be directed to permit the accused-applicant to file the same sureties in all three cases.

Additional Government Advocate, however, opposes the contention of the counsel for the applicant, on the ground that, it is always the discretion and satisfaction of the trial Court, so far as, the acceptance of the sureties is concerned.

The Court observed that,

Having heard counsel for the rival parties, the only grievance of the applicant appears to be that, he despite have obtained the order of the bail in three cases is not able to come out of the prison, because he is not able to find separate sureties for each case, and a prayer has been made that, he be permitted to file same sureties in all the three cases and a suitable direction in this regard be given to the trial Court.

The Court said that the acceptance of the sureties and the verification of them is the prerogative of the trial court and the same in any case could not be controlled by the Court. Sufficient guidelines in this regard have been given by the High Court on the administrative side to the subordinate Courts.

However, as far as the grievance of the applicant pertaining to the fact that he is not in a position to arrange separate sureties for all three cases is concerned, the answer to this apprehension and grievance is implicit in Section 441-A of Code of Criminal Procedure, which is reproduced as under:-

“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.

“Perusal of this Section shows that, a person who is intending to be the surety of any accused person is obliged to declare before the Court that apart from the person to whom he is standing surety, for how many other accused persons, he has stood surety. Therefore, the texture of the Section 441-A of the CrPC, which has been introduced by way of amendment made in the year 2006 clearly reflects that, a person may stand surety for more than one accused person and in more than one case. So there appears no bar for a person to stand surety in more than one case and also for more than one accused person. However, as stated earlier, the status, verification and the competency of the surety will always be assessed by the trial court before acceptance”, the Court further observed, while disposing of the application.

“Thus it is directed that, if same sureties are placed before the trial court in all above three cases and they are otherwise competent and their status and other particulars have been verified, the trial court in its discretion may accept the same in all three cases, but the satisfaction in this regard will always be of the trial court.

It is also provided that while making a decision with regard to the acceptance of the sureties as directed above, the Magistrate or the trial court would have due regard to the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in order dated 29.10.2018 passed in Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky Vs State of U.P, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No 8914-8915 of 2018′, the order read.

The Allahabad High Court has allowed the bail application of Sajid alias Kale, who was arrested with two quintals of banned meat at Nahtaur police station in Bijnor district.

A single-judge bench of Justice Mohd  Faiz Alam Khan passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Sajid @ Kale.

The bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant Sajid @ Kale for grant of bail, in Case under Section 3/5/8 Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station Nahtaur, District Bijnor, during trial.

Counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submitted that the accused-applicant has falsely been implicated in the case and he has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution nor he was arrested from the spot and nothing incriminating has been recovered from his possession or his pointing out.

It is further submitted that the name of the applicant has surfaced in the confessional statement of co-accused Vaseem who has been arrested with incriminating flesh of 200 Kg and other incriminating material.

However, co-accused Vaseem has already been released on bail by a Coordinate Bench of the Court, order dated February 10, 2022 passed in Criminal Misc Bail Application.

It is further submitted that other co-accused standing on the identical footing, namely, Mohd Aasif has also been released on bail by a Coordinate Bench of the Court, order dated 10.02.2022 passed in Criminal Misc Bail Application. The applicant has been in jail in this case since 29.11.2021.

Additional Government Advocate submitted that the applicant is habitual offender of the heinous offences and therefore he is not entitled to be released on bail.

“Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that co-accused persons, Vaseem who was arrested with 200 Kg prohibited flesh and other incriminating material, has been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of the Court and other co-accused Aasif has also been granted facility of bail. Criminal history of the applicant has been adequately explained and the offences charged against the applicant are triable by the weoMagistrate. He has been in jail in this case since 29.11.2021. Charge sheet has also been filed.

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail”, the Court observed while allowing the bail application.

The Court ordered that,

Let applicant- Sajid @ Kale involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.