Ram Nath Mishra Alias Rmanath Mishra v. Central Bureau Of Investigation & Anr.

Heard Sri Nitin Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rahul Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of CBI.

The instant application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to accept a common personal bail bond as well as common sureties for the bails granted in : "(a) RC no.120 2022 A 0001, U/s 420, 120-B IPCand Section 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) P.C. Act, 1988, P.S. C.B.I. A.C.B. Ghaziabad. (b) Case Crime No.1148 of 2021, U/s 120-B, 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, P.S.Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad. (c) Case Crime no.9 of 2022, U/s 420, 467, 468, 471,120-B IPC, 13(2) and 13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S.CBI ACB, Ghaziabad. (d) RC no.00720 22A 0002, Special case no.8 of 2023, U/s 120-B, r/w 420, 468, 471 IPC and 13(2) or 13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S. CBI ACB Ghaziabad. (e) RC No. 1202021A0005/2021, Special Case no.8 of 2022, U/s 420, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and 13(2), 13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S. CBI ACB, Ghaziabad. "

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been made accused by CBI in five cases, and however, in all the five cases bail granting orders have been passed but only due to the reason that he is unable to furnish two sureties each in all the five cases, he is still languishing in Jail.

He further submits that applicant is the resident of State of Bihar and he is a retired person and, therefore, in spite of his best efforts he could not arrange two sureties each for all the five cases and, therefore, he may be permitted to furnish two sureties which should be held good in all the five cases otherwise applicant would suffer with irreparable loss.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the CBI, however, opposed the prayer but could not dispute the fact that in all the five cases bail granting orders have been passed in favour of applicant by the competent court but he is still in custody and, therefore, considering Article 21 of the Constitution of India this Court can pass appropriate order.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

From the record it reflects that applicant has been made accused in five cases and however, bail granting orders have been passed in his favour in all the five cases but he is still in jail as he could not furnish two sureties each in all the five cases which are as follows: "(a) RC no.120 2022 A 0001, U/s 420, 120-B and Section 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) P.C. Act, 1988, P.S. C.B.I. A.C.B. Ghaziabad. (b) Case Crime No.1148 of 2021, U/s 120-B, 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, P.S.Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad. (c) Case Crime no.9 of 2022, U/s 420, 467, 468, 471120-B IPC, 13(2) and 13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S.CBI ACB, Ghaziabad. (d) RC no.00720 22A 0002, Special case no.8 of 2023, U/s 120-B, r/w 420, 468, 471 IPC and 13(2) or 13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S. CBI ACB Ghaziabad. (e) RC No. 1202021A0005/2021, Special Case no.8 of 2022, U/s 420, 468, 471120-B IPC and 13(2), 13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S. CBI ACB, Ghaziabad. "

As in favour of applicant bail granting orders have already been passed in all the aforementioned five cases and only due to the reason that he is not in a position to furnish two separate sureties in each five cases, he is still in jail, therefore, considering the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, in view of this Court, in the interest of justice, he may be permitted to file two common sureties in all the five cases.

Accordingly, the instant application filed by applicant is allowed and it is directed that if applicant furnishes two sureties then both the sureties shall be held good for all the aforementioned five cases. Order Date :- 28.7.2025 SKM