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.