# Shivam Gupta @ Shubham @ Lavi v. State of U.P. 150 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2024) 1 ILRA 149
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-19
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 466 of 2024
- **Bench:** Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shivam-gupta-shubham-lavi-v-state-of-u-p-150-indian-law-reports-allahabad-series-51059
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section - 482 - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 392 & 411 - Application u/s
482 - seeking a direction to the trial court to
accept a single personal bond and only two
sureties for all seven criminal cases against
him - 7 criminal cases - in all cases applicant
granted Bail order in his favour - However,
applicant, because of poor financial condition
of the applicant, he is unable to provide
separate sureties in all the cases despite
being granted bail in all seven cases - court,
considering the applicant's situation, allowed
sureties in four criminal cases and further
sureties and bail bond in other three cases,
respectively - accordingly, application is
disposed of, with direction to release the
applicant
upon
execution
of
bonds
as
directed. (Para - 7, 8, 9)

Application Disposed of. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1 All. Shivam Gupta @ Shubham @ Lavi Vs. State of U.P.
149
more than nine years. The Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Hasmukhlal D. Vora
& ANR. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu,
reported in 2022 SCC online SC 1732 has
observed that while exercising power under
Section 482 CrPC the Court is not expected
to conduct a full-blown investigation at the
stage of a criminal complaint, however, in
such cases where the accused has been
subjected to the anxiety of a potential
initiation of criminal proceedings for such a
length of time, it is only reasonable for the
court to expect bare-minimum evidence
from the Investigating Authorities.

7. Similarly in the case of Neeharika
Infrastructure
Pvt.
Ltd
v.
State
of
Maharashtra reported in SCC Online SC
351, Hon'ble Apex Court observed that
High Court should not embark upon an
enquiry into the merits and demerits of the
allegations and quash the proceeding
without allowing the investigating agency
to complete its task and further observed
that the power under Section 482 should be
exercised only where the allegations made
in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach a
just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused.

8.

Similarly,
in
the
case
of
Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai and
others vs The State Of Gujarat and
others reported in Vol-9 SCC 641, it was
further observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court
that while the Inherent power is of wide
plenitude with no statutory limitation but it
has to be exercised in accord with the
guideline engrafted in such power viz.:

(i) to secure the ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the
process of any court.

9. Similarly in the case of C.B.I. Vs
Aryan Singh, 2023 Live Law (S.C.) 292,
Hon'ble Apex Court observed that High
Court cannot conduct "mini trial" while
executing powers under Section 482 CrPC.

10. In view of legal position
mentioned above this Court holds that
application filed under Section 482 CrPC
for quashing the criminal proceeding is not
maintainable after considerably long period
in absence of any explanation for delay,
specifically when charges were framed
against applicants in his presence long
back, except in exceptional cases which
may persuade the Court to interfere in the
interest of justice.

11. In view of the above discussion,
as well as on perusal of record it is clear
that prima facie case is made out against
the applicants and charges have been
framed against the applicants in 2018 itself.
Therefore, after the delay of more than nine
years, this Court does not find sufficient
ground to interfere in the present case.
Accordingly, the present application under
Section 482 is dismissed.

12. No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 149
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 466 of 2024

Shivam Gupta @ Shubham @ Lavi ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party
150 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Applicant:
Dharm Trivedi

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section - 482 - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 392 & 411 - Application u/s
482 - seeking a direction to the trial court to
accept a single personal bond and only two
sureties for all seven criminal cases against
him - 7 criminal cases - in all cases applicant
granted Bail order in his favour - However,
applicant, because of poor financial condition
of the applicant, he is unable to provide
separate sureties in all the cases despite
being granted bail in all seven cases - court,
considering the applicant's situation, allowed
sureties in four criminal cases and further
sureties and bail bond in other three cases,
respectively - accordingly, application is
disposed of, with direction to release the
applicant
upon
execution
of
bonds
as
directed. (Para - 7, 8, 9)

Application Disposed of. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Hani Nishad Vs St. of UP - AIR Online 2018
SC 1576.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Kumar
Singh Deshwal, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant and Sri Arvind Kumar Tripathi,
learned AGA for the State.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application
has been filed to direct the learned court
below to take one personal bond and only
two sureties from the petitioner in all 7
cases mentioned below:

1. Case Crime No.196 of 2023,
u/s 392, 411 IPC, Police Station-Vikas
Nagar, District-Lucknow, Bail granted on
and surety amount = 23.11.2023, two
sureties of Rs.1,00,000/-.

2. Case Crime No.197 of 2023,
u/s 392, 411 IPC, Police Station-Vikas
Nagar, District-Lucknow, Bail granted on
and surety amount = 23.11.2023, two
sureties of Rs.1,00,000/-.

3. Case Crime No.198 of 2023,
u/s 392, 411 IPC, Police Station-Chowk,
District-Lucknow, Bail granted on and
surety amount = 03.01.2024, two sureties
of Rs.1,00,000/-.

4. Case Crime No.205 of 2023,
u/s 392, 411 IPC, Police Station-P.G.I.,
District-Lucknow, Bail granted on and
surety amount = 24.11.2023, two sureties of
Rs.1,00,000/-.

5. Case Crime No.31 of 2023, u/s
392, 411 IPC, Police Station-Hasanganj,
District-Lucknow, Bail granted on and
surety amount = 03.01.2024, two sureties
of Rs.1,00,000/-.

6. Case Crime No.253 of 2023,
u/s 392, 411 IPC, Police Station-Aliganj,
District-Lucknow, Bail granted on and
surety amount = 03.01.2024, two sureties
of Rs.1,00,000/-.

7. Case Crime No.133 of 2023,
u/s 394 IPC, Police Station-Aliganj,
District-Lucknow, Bail granted on and
surety amount = 03.01.2024, two sureties
of Rs.1,00,000/-

in which the petitioner has been
granted bail by the learned courts below,
which this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to fix in the interest of justice."

3. Contention of learned counsel for
the applicant is that the applicant was
falsely implicated in seven cases though he
was not named in six cases but on his arrest
in Case Crime No.197 of 2023, Police
Station-Vikas
Nagar,
District-Lucknow,
other cases were also planted on him and
further submits that though the bail has
1 All. Shivam Gupta @ Shubham @ Lavi Vs. State of U.P.
151
been granted to the applicant in all the
seven cases but he could not be released
from jail because of his poor financial
condition, he is unable to provide separate
sureties in all seven cases. Therefore, he
may be permitted to furnish sureties in one
case which may be deemed to be valid in
other six cases in view of the law laid down
by the Apex Court in Hani Nishad Vs.
State of U.P. reported in AIR OnLine
2018 SC 1576 direction may be issued that
sureties in one case be held good in other
remaining six cases.

4. Learned AGA has pointed out that
in Hani Nishad's case (supra), this court
has not laid down any law for universal
application of its observations but that was
passed
on
the
basis
of
special
circumstances of that case.

5.

Considering
the
facts
and
circumstances and on perusal of judgement
of the Apex Court in Hani Nishad's case
(supra), it is clear that the Apex Court did
not lay down any law to permit the accused
involved in number of cases to provide
sureties only in one case to release him in
other cases also. Paragraph nos.7 and 8 of
the aforesaid judgement are being quoted
as below:

"7. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that even though the
court has granted bail to the petitioner, the
petitioner is unable to execute the bail
bonds because of the onerous conditions of
bail imposed particularly the condition of
producing 31 sureties.

8. Considering the submissions,
the impugned order is modified to the
extent that the petitioner shall execute a
personal bond for Rs.30,000/- (Rupees
Thirty thousand only) and the same bond
shall hold good for all 31 cases. There
shall be two sureties who shall execute the
bond for Rs.30,000/- which bond shall hold
good for all the 31 cases. It is clarified that
the personal bond so executed by the
petitioner and the bond so executed by the
two sureties shall hold good for all the 31
cases."

6. Therefore, in absence of any law, it
is discretion of court on considering facts
and circumstances of case including the
nature of cases to permit the accused
involved in number of cases to provide
sureties in one or more cases which will
be held good in remaining cases also.

7. However, in the present case, it is
specifically mentioned that because of
poor financial condition of the applicant,
he is unable to provide separate sureties in
all the cases though he has been granted
bail in November, 2023 and January, 2024
in all cases.

8. Considering the aforesaid fact and
circumstances, this court directs that if the
applicant provides sureties in case crime
no.197 of 2023, Police Station-Vikas
Nagar, District-Lucknow then same shall
be held good in case crime no.196 of
2023, Police Station-Vikas Nagar, DistrictLucknow, in Case Crime No.198 of 2023,
Police Station-Chowk, District-Lucknow,
as well as in Case Crime No.205 of 2023,
Police Station-P.G.I., District-Lucknow.

9. The applicant will also provide
sureties and bail bond in case crime no.31
of 2023, Police Station-Hasanganj, DistrictLucknow then this sureties and personal
bond in this case will hold good in case
crime no.253 of 2023, Police StationAliganj, District-Lucknow, and in Case
Crime No.133 of 2023, Police StationAliganj, District-Lucknow.
152 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. On executing the sureties and
personal bond as directed above, the
applicant shall be released on bail.

11. With the above observations, the
present application is disposed of.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 152
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 776 of 1987

Suresh Chandra Rastogi ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Daya Shankar Mishra, Karuna Shanker
Rastogi, Ram Kishor

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 195, 195(1)(b)(i), 340 &
482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections
193, 193(2), 195, 196, 199, 200, 205, 211,
380 & 411- Constitution of India,1950 -
Article 21 - Application u/s 482 - for quashing
the charge-sheet as well as summoning order -
FIR - Charge-sheet - plea taken that, the
impugned charge-sheet was filled on a printed
proforma and summoning order was passed
without applying judicial mind, as required by
law - Court finds that, - merit in this claim, citing
precedents including Lalankumar Singh v. St. of
Mah. and various rulings from coordinate
benches, all emphasizing that issuing process
must
reflect
a
Magistrate's
prima
facie
satisfaction based on the material on record -
Court held that, merely filing up printed
proforma and then signing the same will not be
a cognizance at all because this is completely
non-application of mind on the part of concern
Magistrate for taking such mechanical orders
which also violate constitutional safeguards
under Article 21 - hence, directed to issue
well-reasoned
cognizance
orders
afresh,
within one month - consequently, applicant is
allowed
and
the
impugned
orders
are
quashed.
(Para - 9, 10, 11)

Application Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Lalankumar Singh Vs St. of Mah.; 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 1383,

2. Surendra Kumar & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & anr.-
2021 (7) ADJ 61,

3. Dhanesh Kumar @ Dhanesh Kumar Mishra
Vs St. of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. &
anr. passed in Application u/s 482 No.9892 of
2022 dated 04.01.2023,

4. Amit Kumar Dwivedi & anr. Vs St. of U.P. &
anr. - Application u/s 482 No. 35443/2023 -
order dated 05.10.2023.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,
J.)

1. Heard Sri Karuna Shankar Rastogi
Advocate, the learned counsel for the
applicant and Sri Shaunak Singh, the
learned AGA-I for the State.

2. By means of the instant
application filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C. the applicant has sought quashing
of the order dated 24.12.1985 passed by
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Lakhimpur Kheri in a complaint filed
under Section 193/211 IPC, which has
been registered as a Criminal Case
No.1191 of 1987: State Vs. Suresh Chandra
Rastogi as well as the order dated
12.01.1987,
passed
by
the