Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 127936 (ALL)

DINESH v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. SECY. DEPTT. HOME LKO.

A482/2284/2025 · 2025-03-19

Manish Kumar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:15904 Court No. - 14 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2284 of 2025 Applicant :- Dinesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Haroon,Ankit Pandey,Arif Hussain,Gitesh Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. 1. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C (now Section 528 B.N.S.S) has been preferred with a prayer that this Court may pass an order or issued direction to the court below to accept one surety of Rs. 20,000/- in the Case Crime No. 167 of 2019, under Sections 308, 323 I.P.C, Police Station- Thakurganj, District Lucknow. 2. Learned A.G.A has submitted that the applicant had earlier approached this Court by filing an Application under Section 482 No. 1499 of 2025 for the same relief i.e. for reducing the amount of surety. The said application was allowed by this Court vide its order dated 20.02.2025. The relevant portion of the said order is quoted hereinbelow:- "The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is a poor person and has no social contact, therefore, despite granting anticipatory bail to him, he is not in a position to furnish two sureties of Rs. 1,00,000/- each, hence in the interest of justice condition imposed in order dated 23.02.2024 may be modified allowing the applicant to furnish a bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- and only one surety of the same amount. Learned A.G.A. has no objection to such prayer of the applicant. Considering the facts of the case, applicant is directed to furnish only one surety of Rs. 1,00,000/- instead of two sureties of Rs. 1,00,000/-." Accordingly, the condition of aforesaid anticipatory bail order dated 23.02.2024 is modified to that extant" 3. It is further submitted that now, the second application for the same cause is not maintainable in this court. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant may be permitted to withdraw the present application as dismissed as not pressed with liberty to move an appropriate application in earlier application under Section 482, preferred by the applicant. 5. As such, the present application is dismissed as not pressed with liberty to the applicant to avail the remedy as may be permissible under the law. Order Date :- 19.3.2025 DiVYa Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench