# Akhilesh Paswan v. State of U.P. Opp. Party

- **Citation:** (2023) 11 ILRA 340
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-11-28
- **Case number:** Application u/s 482 No. 11555 of 2023
- **Bench:** Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/akhilesh-paswan-v-state-of-u-p-opp-party-49457
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power, Section 441-A - Declaration of
sureties - no bar for accepting a person as
surety even if he has stood as such, in
some other case/cases - Indian Penal
Code,
1860
-
Section
201,302,307,364,392,411, Arms Act, 1959
- Sections- 3/25, The U.P. Gangster and
Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
1986 - section 3(1) - Neither the court nor
the accused can bind a surety to stand as
such in all the cases unless he himself is
willing to do so - pre condition for
accepting the surety - they should be fit or
competent, solvent and reliable. (Para - 8,
9, 10, 11)

Bail granted to applicant in all four cases - by
order of High Court passed on different dates -
directed to furnish two sureties in each of the
cases - applicant cannot arrange two sureties
for each case - Seeking direction to courts
below - to release petitioner on bail - accepting
11 All. Akhilesh Paswan Vs. State of U.P.
341
only two sureties in all the four cases. (Para -
2,4)

HELD: -Applicant or surety Shall apply for a
court to arrange different persons as sureties,
highlighting any difficulties they may face. Court
concerned shall, before accepting the sureties,
keep provisions of Section 441-A Cr.P.C. in
mind. (Para - 12)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. disposed of. (E7)

List of Cases Cited:-

## Text

340 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

20. So far as the other witnesses,
namely Sri Shashi Shekhar Ojha, Praveen
Kumar Srivastava, Raghav Ram Pandey,
Surendra Kumar Tiwari, Babban Pandey,
Harishanker
Barai,
Devdadeen
and
Chandramani Tiwari, indicated in the
Application No.306 Kha preferred by the
petitioner are concerned, it is to be noted
that the court has duty to call/summon
those
witnesses,
whose
testimony is
relevant and therefore, if an accused wants
to summon a witness then, he has to
explain to the court the reasons for the
same. In another words, the relevancy of
the witnesses is to be shown, pleaded and
proved.

21. From the application on record, it
is apparent that the relevancy to call the
witnesses namely Head Moharrir, Police
Station Tarabganj, District Gonda, Prabhari
Adhikari (Ayudh) and also Sri Shashi
Shekhar Ojha, Praveen Kumar Srivastava,
Raghav Ram Pandey, Surendra Kumar
Tiwari, Babban Pandey, Harishanker Barai,
Devdadeen and Chandramani Tiwari has
not been indicated. As such, the trial court
rightly rejected the Application No.306
Kha.

22. The trial court while rejecting the
applications preferred by the petitioner for
summoning
the
witnesses
specifically
observed that the applications have been
moved with an intention to delay the trial.
In the instant case, the FIR was lodged way
back on 14.07.1997 and as such, this
observation of the trial court appears to be
just and proper.

23. For the reasons aforesaid, this
Court affirms the specific findings given by
the
trial
court
while
rejecting
the
application(s) preferred by the applicant
and accordingly, this Court is of the view
that the application(s) have rightly been
rejected by the trial court and as such, the
present
application
is
liable
to
be
dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. No
order as to costs.
----------
(2023) 11 ILRA 340
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 28.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JYOTSNA SHARMA, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 11555 of 2023

Akhilesh Paswan ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Santosh Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Opp. Party:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power, Section 441-A - Declaration of
sureties - no bar for accepting a person as
surety even if he has stood as such, in
some other case/cases - Indian Penal
Code,
1860
-
Section
201,302,307,364,392,411, Arms Act, 1959
- Sections- 3/25, The U.P. Gangster and
Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
1986 - section 3(1) - Neither the court nor
the accused can bind a surety to stand as
such in all the cases unless he himself is
willing to do so - pre condition for
accepting the surety - they should be fit or
competent, solvent and reliable. (Para - 8,
9, 10, 11)

Bail granted to applicant in all four cases - by
order of High Court passed on different dates -
directed to furnish two sureties in each of the
cases - applicant cannot arrange two sureties
for each case - Seeking direction to courts
below - to release petitioner on bail - accepting
11 All. Akhilesh Paswan Vs. State of U.P.
341
only two sureties in all the four cases. (Para -
2,4)

HELD: -Applicant or surety Shall apply for a
court to arrange different persons as sureties,
highlighting any difficulties they may face. Court
concerned shall, before accepting the sureties,
keep provisions of Section 441-A Cr.P.C. in
mind. (Para - 12)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. disposed of. (E7)

List of Cases Cited:-

1. Hani Nishad @ Muhammad Imran @ Vikky Vs
St. of U. P., in Petition(S) for special leave to
appeal (criminal) No. 8915 of 2018

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs.Jyotsna
Sharma, J.)

1.

Heard
Sri
Santosh
Kumar
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This petition under section 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed by accused Akhilesh
Paswan with the prayer as below:

"To direct the learned courts below to
release the petitioner on bail, accepting
only two sureties in all the four cases, i.e.
Case Crime No. 75 of 2022, under section
307 I.P.C. P.S.- Cantt. District- Ayodhya,
(ii) Case Crime No. 190 of 2022, under
sections 364, 302, 201, 392, 411 I.P.C. P.S.-
Kotwali Nagar, District- Ayodhya, (iii)
Case Crime No.78 of 2022, under sections-
3/25 Arms Act, P.S.- Cantt. District-
Ayodhya and (iv) Case Crime No.241 of
2022, under section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster
and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
1986, P.S.- Cantt. District- Ayodhya."

3. The submissions of the applicant
are
that
in
connivance
with
police
personnels, he has been falsely implicated
in four criminal cases viz.

I. Case Crime No. 75 of 2022, under
section 307 I.P.C. P.S.- Cantt. District-
Ayodhya.

II. Case Crime No. 190 of 2022, under
sections 364, 302, 201, 392, 411 I.P.C. P.S.-
Kotwali Nagar, District- Ayodhya.

III. Case Crime No.78 of 2022, under
sections- 3/25 Arms Act, P.S.- Cantt.
District- Ayodhya.

IV. Case Crime No.241 of 2022, under
section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986,
P.S.- Cantt. District- Ayodhya.

4. The applicant has been granted bail
in all the aforesaid cases by order of the
High Court passed on different dates and he
has been directed to furnish two sureties in
each of the cases. It is submitted by the
applicant that he is a poor person and
therefore, he cannot arrange two sureties
for each case.

5. The application is opposed by the
learned A.G.A.

6. When the presence of accused is
needed before the court, the courts, to
secure his attendance before it, may require
the person concerned to execute a bond;
additionally the court may also direct the
persons/accused
concerned
to
furnish
sureties. The only purpose of this exercise
is to ensure and secure production of the
accused before concerned forum. There is
no bar that a person, who has stood surety
for securing the attendance of the accused
before the court concerned, cannot stand as
such, in any other case irrespective of
whether the accused is same or not. There
may be instances where an accused is
facing criminal prosecution in a number of
342 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
cases. Depending on number of cases and
personal circumstances of an accused, he
may face difficulty in producing different
sureties in each case. The court should be
concerned
with
the
reliability
and
competency of sureties only, unless there
are circumstances or factors dissuading the
court from accepting such sureties for good
reasons. As observed earlier, if the surety is
competent and reliable, the court concerned
may accept his/her bond notwithstanding
the fact that same person has stood surety
in some other case.

7. The applicant relies upon a
judgment of the Supreme Court given in
Hani Nishad @ Muhammad Imran @
Vikky Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, in
Petition(S) for special leave to appeal
(criminal) No. 8915 of 2018, delivered on
29.10.2018. In the aforesaid case, the
accused was granted bail in 31 cases asking
him to furnish two sureties each in all 31
cases. The applicant-accused expressed his
inability to arrange for sureties. The
Supreme Court ordered that same surety
bond shall hold good for all 31 cases. It
may be noted that Supreme Court did not
lay down any principle of law and that a
particular relief was given to the applicant
as per the exigencies of a particular case. In
the case in hand, the accused is required to
arrange two sureties each in four cases he is
facing.

8. It cannot be presumed that the court
concerned shall ask for 8 different sureties.
It is the discretion of the court concerned to
accept the same set of sureties in all the 4
cases or ask for different sureties in any one
or more of them. No hard and fast rule can
be laid down in such matters. Any such
attempt will be unnecessary incursion in
judicial discretion of the courts. In my
view, where accused is facing a number of
criminal cases, he may indeed face some
difficulty in arranging for different persons
to stand as surety in each one of them. In
such circumstances, he may move an
application before the court concerned
disclosing difficulties faced by him, if any,
and to permit him to furnish same set of
sureties in a particular case, however, this
observation cannot be construed to mean
that he has right to produce same set of
sureties. Moreover, it is the sweet will of
surety whether he wants to stand as such in
a case or not. Neither the court nor the
accused can bind a surety to stand as
such in all the cases unless he himself is
willing to do so.

9. The only pre condition for
accepting the surety is that they should be
fit or competent, solvent and reliable.

10. The Section 441-A Cr.P.C.
clarifies the position of law, which is as
below.

[441-A.
Declaration
of
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.]

11. The above provision indicate
that there is no bar for accepting a
person as surety even if he has stood as
such, in some other case/cases. On the
other hand, such declaration is not a
meaningless requirement. This is where
court's positive discretion may have a
role to play.

12. In view of the above position of
law, I finally dispose of this application as
below.
11 All. Abbas Ansari Vs. State of U.P.
343

The applicant or his surety shall move
an
application
in
the
light
of
the
observations as above apprising the court
concerned of the difficulty if any, faced by
him in arranging different persons as
sureties and the court concerned shall
decide the same applying his judicial
discretion. The court concerned shall,
before
accepting
the
sureties,
keep
provisions of Section 441-A Cr.P.C. in
mind.

13. Accordingly, this application is
finally disposed of.
----------
(2023) 11 ILRA 343
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 3121 of 2023

Abbas Ansari ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Applicant:
Pranjal Krishna, Arun Sinha, Siddhartha Sinha

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 - Arms Act,
1959 - Section 30 - Arms Rules, 1962 -
Rule 54(6) - Allegation against applicant
that he initially granted licence by District
Magistrate for single DBBL gun, which did
not bear UID number - Under Rule 54(6)
of Arms Rules, 1962 (effective from
24.07.2012), no arms licence is valid
without UID allotted through electronic
automated system as developed by NIC
w.e.f. 01.10.2015 - Applicant's plea that
UID introduced in 2016 and prior to that,
there was no prescription for issuance of
UID, rejected - No steps taken to obtain
UID, licence became invalidated - Despite
his licence of Lucknow having lapsed on
01.10.2015, he obtained licence of Delhi
on
01.06.2017
and
acquired
seven
firearms - He imported pistol, rifle and six
barrels in breach of NRAI import permit,
including two prohibited-bore barrels and
pistol with three spare barrels without
NRAI permit, not permissible for shooter -
Case against applicant rests on NRAI
Secretary's letter and cancellation order
by
Joint
Commissioner
of
Police,
Licensing, New Delhi - Large quantities of
arms and ammunition recovered from his
Delhi premises - His past influence over
jail authorities, enabling unauthorised
visits by his wife with mobile phone,
indicates risk of witness influence and
evidence
tampering
-
Thus,
bail
application rejected. (Para 52, 53, 54, 58)

Bail application rejected. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Satender Kumar Antil Vs CBI, (2022) 10 SCC
51

2. Siddharth Vs St. of U.P. & anr., (2022) 1 SCC
676, (Paras 9 to 11)

3. Dr. Shivinder Mohan Singh Vs Directorate of
Enforcement, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 766, (Paras
24 to 26)

4. Moti Ram Vs St. of M.P., (1978) 4 SCC 47,
(Para 2)

5. Babu Singh Vs St. of U.P., (1978) 1 SCC 579,
(Paras 16, 19, 20)

6. Ash Mohammad Vs Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla
Babu & anr., (2012) 9 SCC 446

7. Chaman Lal Vs St. of U.P. & anr., (2004) 7
SCC 525

8. Masroor Vs St. of U.P. & anr., (2009) 14 SCC
286