Take the pledge to vote

For a better tommorow#AajSawaroApnaKal
  • I agree to receive emails from News18

  • I promise to vote in this year's elections no matter what the odds are.
  • Please check above checkbox.

    SUBMIT

Thank you for
taking the pledge

Vote responsibly as each vote counts
and makes a diffrence

Disclaimer:

Issued in public interest by HDFC Life. HDFC Life Insurance Company Limited (Formerly HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited) (“HDFC Life”). CIN: L65110MH2000PLC128245, IRDAI Reg. No. 101 . The name/letters "HDFC" in the name/logo of the company belongs to Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited ("HDFC Limited") and is used by HDFC Life under an agreement entered into with HDFC Limited. ARN EU/04/19/13618
LIVE TV DownloadNews18 App
News18 English
»
1-min read

SC Respite for Lucknow Man Who Was Asked to Arrange 62 People for Bail in 31 Criminal Cases

The top court has modified the Allahabad High Court order, maintaining that two people will be good enough as sureties for bail.

Utkarsh Anand | CNN-News18

Updated:November 10, 2018, 2:40 PM IST
facebookTwitterskypewhatsapp
SC Respite for Lucknow Man Who Was Asked to Arrange 62 People for Bail in 31 Criminal Cases
The Supreme Court of India. (News18 Creative)
Loading...

New Delhi: A man who was asked to arrange as many as 62 people as his sureties for bail in 31 cases has got a respite from the Supreme Court.

The top court has modified the Allahabad High Court order, maintaining that two people will be good enough as sureties for bail.

"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," held a bench headed by Justice R Banumathi.

Accused Hani Nishad, allegedly involved in 31 criminal cases in Lucknow district, was released on bail by the High Court in May. But he was directed to arrange two sureties each for all the 31 cases.

In August, the High Court declined to modify its order, compelling Nishad to move the Supreme Court in appeal.

His lawyer submitted that it was impossible for the petitioner to arrange 62 sureties and that despite getting bail, the onerous condition would not let him out.

Nishad also relied upon another order by the High Court in a similar case where the accused was permitted to have common sureties for different cases.

The Supreme Court bench found merit in his plea and lent credence to the order issued by the High Court in a similar case.

It diluted the stringent condition and allowed Nishad to produce only two sureties instead of 62 to enable him walk out of jail.

| Edited by: Nitya Thirumalai
Read full article
Loading...
Next Story
Next Story

Also Watch

facebookTwitterskypewhatsapp

Live TV

Loading...
Countdown To Elections Results
  • 01 d
  • 12 h
  • 38 m
  • 09 s
To Assembly Elections 2018 Results