MR. CHAND MIYAJAN QUERESHI AND OTHERS V. UNION OF INDIA THRU. R.K. SAXENA INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS.

/5428/2023

AI Insights

The case involves an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. by Mr. Chand Miyajan Qureshi and others, seeking to direct the Special C.J.M (Custom), Lucknow to accept the personal bond and sureties filed in Complaint Case No.2114 of 2017 for two other related cases, Complaint Case Nos. 2115 and 2116 of 2017. The applicants were previously granted bail in these cases with the condition of filing a personal bond and two sureties for each case. Due to difficulties in arranging the required sureties, the applicants requested the court to relax this condition. The opposition argued that the condition of filing sureties is an inseparable part of the bail order. The court, referencing a decision by the Apex Court, modified the bail condition to require one surety instead of two for each case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 670953 (HC-LUCKNOW)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 01-06-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vicky vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: KAMAL SRIVASTAVA
• Assessee Lawyers: KRISHANA SINGH
• Keywords: Bail; Complaint case; Income Tax Act; Personal Bond; Sureties
• Section: 278B; 276B

Judgement Text

"Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:40062 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5428 of 2023 Applicant :- Mr. Chand Miyajan Quereshi And Others Opposite Party :- Union Of India Thru. R.K. Saxena Income T ax Officer Tds. Counsel for Applicant :- Krishana Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Kamal Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J. 1. Heard sri Krishna Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Kushagra Dikshit, learned counsel for opposite party and perused the entire record. 2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P .C. has been filed by the applicants to direct the Special C.J.M (Custom), Lucknow to accept the personal bond and sureties filed by the applicants in Complaint Case No.2114 of 2017 in other two complaint cases being Complaint Case No.2115 of 2017 and 2116 of 2017 and applicants may kindly be directed to released in complaint case nos.2115 of 2017 and 2116/2117 on the same personal bond and sureties as submitted by the applicants in Complaint Case No.2114/2017. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that in three criminal cases bearing (i) Complaint Case No.2114 of 2017, under Section 276 B read with Section 278 B of Income T ax Act, Police Station Income T ax, Lucknow (ii) Complaint Case No.2115 of 2017, under Section 276 B read with Section 278 B of Income T ax Act, Police Station Income T ax, Lucknow and (iii) Complaint Case No.2116 of 2017, under Section 276 B read with Section 278 B of Income T ax Act, Police Station Income T ax, Lucknow, the applicant has already been granted bail by the court below subject to filing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount. However, the applicant being unable to arrange two sureties for each case is still languishing in jail. He, thus, submits that the condition of filing two sureties each be relaxed and the applicants should be directed to be released on filing his personal bonds only. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicants by submitting that the condition of filing two sureties and bonds is inseperable part of the order granting bail to the applicant. Therefore, the applicant cannot be exempted from filing sureties bonds as directed by learned trial Court. 5. Having heard learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of the record it transpires that the applicant has already been granted bail in the aforesaid cases with the condition to file a personal bond and two sureties in each cases. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the decision of Apex Court in the case of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vicky vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh in Special Leave to Appeal No. 8914-8915 of 2018, decided on 31.10.2013, in which, Hon'ble Apex Court has passed the order directing the accused to execute one personal bond and two sureties in all cases, in which, he was enlarged on bail. 7. Thus, having regard to the overall aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that the applicants shall furnish a personal bond of the amount specified by the learned trial Court and one surety in each cases i.e. (i) Complaint Case No.2114 of 2017, under Section 276 B read with Section 278 B of Income T ax Act, Police Station Income T ax, Lucknow (ii) Complaint Case No.2115 of 2017, under Section 276 B read with Section 278 B of Income T ax Act, Police Station Income T ax, Lucknow and (iii) Complaint Case No.2116 of 2017, under Section 276 B read with Section 278 B of Income T ax Act, Police Station Income T ax, Lucknow and thereafter they shall be released on bail in accordance with law, if they are not wanted in any other case. 8. With the above observations, this application under Section 482 Cr.P .C. is finally disposed of. Order Date :- 1.6.2023 Mahesh Digitally signed by :- MAHESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench "