Allahabad High Court

KHALIDversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 19 April 2026
Bench: JAI PRAKASH TIWARI

Holding

The High Court held that the lower courts erred in retaining the bail surety amount after fresh sureties were furnished and set aside the impugned orders.

Summary

The applicant, Khalid, deposited Rs.2,00,000 as bail surety and later furnished fresh sureties and a personal bond as ordered by the court. He applied to the trial court for release of the deposited amount, but the application was rejected on the ground that the case had been committed to the Sessions Court. The applicant then filed a criminal revision, which was dismissed on the basis that the order was interlocutory and not maintainable. The High Court held that once fresh sureties were accepted, there was no justification for retaining the earlier deposit and that the lower courts erred in refusing to consider the substantive issue. Consequently, the orders of the trial court and the Additional Sessions Judge were set aside, and the applicant was directed to file a fresh application for release of the amount. The High Court disposed of the present application, allowing the applicant to move a fresh petition with a certified copy of this order.

Issues considered

Whether an interlocutory order retaining bail surety amount is maintainable for revision under Section 482 of the CrPC.
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to release the bail surety amount after the applicant furnished fresh sureties and a personal bond.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 307
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(2)(5)

Subjects

bail
surety
interlocutory order
Section 482 CrPC
revision
release of deposit
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37274 of 2017

Khalid
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sudhir Kumar Agarwal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 84
HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J.

Heard Sri Sudhir Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant, as well as learned
AGA for the State and perused the entire material available on record.

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the
applicant with the prayer to quash the order dated 08.03.2017 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, District Muzaffar Nagar in Criminal Revision
No. 192 of 2016 (Khalid vs. State of U.P.) and the order dated 17.06.2016 passed by
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar in Case No. 402/9 of 2016
(State vs. Khalid), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of
SC/ST Act, Police Station Budhana, District Muzaffar Nagar, with the further prayer
to direct the court concerned to release the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- deposited before
the court concerned to the applicant in the aforesaid case.

As per the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, in compliance of the order
dated 23.12.2015 passed in the bail application, the applicant deposited a sum of Rs.
2,00,000/- by way of challan bearing No. 69 before the court concerned on 24.12.2015
towards sureties. Subsequently, on 12.01.2016, the applicant furnished two fresh
sureties along with personal bond in compliance of the order of the same date, which
were duly accepted by the court concerned. It is further submitted that thereafter the
applicant moved an application seeking release of the aforesaid deposited amount.
However, the said application was rejected by the court concerned vide order dated
17.06.2016 on the ground that the application was not maintainable as the case had
already been committed to the Court of Sessions. Aggrieved against the said order, the
applicant preferred Criminal Revision No. 192 of 2016 before the learned Sessions
Judge,which was also rejected vide order dated 08.03.2017 with observation that order
A482 No. 37274 of 2017
2

is interlocutory in nature, hence revision is not maintainable against such order.

The core issue involved in the present matter is with regard to the retention of the
amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- deposited by the applicant pursuant to the bail order dated
23.12.2015 towards sureties. It is not in dispute that subsequent to such deposit, the
applicant furnished two fresh sureties along with personal bond, which have already
been accepted by the court concerned.

In view of the aforesaid facts, once the applicant has furnished fresh sureties and
personal bond in compliance of the bail order, the purpose of retaining the amount
deposited earlier no longer survives. The continued retention of such amount, without
any subsisting reason, appears to be unjustified. The courts below, while rejecting the
application of the applicant, have failed to consider this material aspect of the matter
and have dismissed the application on a technical ground of maintainability without
adjudicating the substantive issue involved.

Accordingly, the impugned order(s) dated 17.06.2016 passed by the court concerned
and dated 08.03.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffar
Nagar, are hereby set aside.

Accordingly, the present application is disposed of with the direction that the
applicant shall be at liberty to move a fresh application before the court concerned to
release the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- deposited through challan bearing No. 69.

If such application alongwith certified copy of this order is moved by the applicant,
the court concerned is further directed to dispose of the same as per the provision of
law.

(Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.)
April 20, 2026
Brijesh

Digitally signed by :-
BRIJESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…