Vikky v. the State of Uttar Pradesh) and submission has been made

1. Heard Shri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This application U/S 528 BNSS has been filed with the following prayer:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the learned Courts below to accept the same sureties and bonds as furnished by the applicant in accordance with law for releasing the applicant on bail during the pendency of trial in the criminal cases pending in the learned courts below which are total four in numbers i.e. 1. Case Crime No. 404 of 2016, U/s 307, 420, 467, 468, 414 of IPC., P.S. Kotwali, District Muzaffar Nagar. 2. Case Crime No. 1924 of 2016, U/s 307, 420, 467, 468, 471, 414 of IPC., P.S. Kotwali, District Muzaffar Nagar. 3. Case Crime No. 403 of 2016, U/s 394, 411 of IPC., P.S. Kotwali, District Muzaffar Nagar. 4. Case Crime No. 2260 of 2017 U/s 392, 506 of IPC., P.S. Kotwali, District Muzaffar Nagar.” as shown in Paragraph No.7 of this affidavit." And/or to pass any suitable order or direction to which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."

3. In paragraph 8 of the affidavit, it is stated that though bail has been granted in all the four cases, applicant is unable to make arrangement of sureties and bonds relating to different persons and, therefore, he could not be released so far.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon order of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 29.10.2018 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.8915 of 2018 (Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh) and submission has been made 2 NA528 No. 32564 of 2025 that when bail is granted to an accused in various cases, directing arranging the sureties in all cases, High Court can modify the condition in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. permitting release of the accused on bail on furnishing only one or two sureties.

5. Reliance has also been placed on an order dated 03.10.2024 passed by this Court in Application U/S 528 BNSS No.33571 of 2024 (Javed vs. State of U.P.) wherein under identical circumstances, accused concerned was released on bail in three cases and this Court, considering the requirement of sureties in all cases, permitted release of accused on his furnishing only one surety and personal bond separately in all cases.

6. Learned A.G.A. submits that since the accused-applicant has been granted bail in July, 2025 and two orders have been passed by Sessions Court and two by Magisterial Court, appropriate directions may be issued considering the said situation and in light of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, as noted above.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court, first of all, deems it appropriate to reproduce the orders relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant.

8. The order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hani Nishad (supra) reads as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is said to have been involved in 31 criminal cases for various offences. The Trial Court granted bail in all the 31 cases by different orders inter alia on condition of arranging two sureties each in all the cases. The petitioner moved the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, contending that it was impossible for the petitioner to arrange 62 sureties. It is the case of the petitioner that the High Court had in similar circumstances granted bail to the petitioner with two sureties of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) in the case under Gangster Act and the same sureties were to be the sureties in all other cases as well, by an order dated 21.9.2017. The petitioner was directed to execute personal bond of 3 NA528 No. 32564 of 2025 Rs. 30,000/- in each case. However, by the impugned order, the High Court has modified the conditions of bail imposed by the Trial Court in the instant cases by directing the Trial Court to accept one common surety for all the cases and one surety each for the 31 cases. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the Court has granted bail to the petitioner, the petitioner is unable to execute the bail bonds because of the onerous conditions of bail imposed particularly the condition of producing 31 sureties. Considering the submissions, the impugned order is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) and the same bond shall hold good for all 31 cases. 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. With these observations, the Special Leave Petitions are disposed of. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of."

9. The order of Co-ordinate Bench dated 03.10.2024 passed in Javed (supra) reads as under:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State- respondent, and perused material on record.

2. By means of the present application, the applicant has sought for a suitable direction to the court of learned trial court to consider sureties and personal bond in one case treating the same for all the three cases, in which the applicant has been granted bail by the trial court.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been enlarged on bail by the trial court in three cases; (i) vide order dated 25.1.2024 in Case Crime No.468 of 2023, under Sections 379, 411, 420 IPC, P.S. Budhana, District Muzaffar Nagar on furnishing personal bond of Rs.1 lac with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court; (ii) vide order dated 25.1.2024 in Case Crime No.472 of 2023, under Sections 379, 411, 420 IPC, P.S. Budhana, District Muzaffar Nagar on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1 lac with two sureties each in the like amount; and (iii) vide order dated 25.1.2024 in Case Crime No.473 of 2023, under Section 414 IPC & 4/25 of Arms Act, P.S. Budhana, District Muzaffar Nagar on furnishing personal bond of Rs.1 4 NA528 No. 32564 of 2025 lac with two sureties each in the like amount. He further submits that the trial court has directed the applicant to file separate personal bonds and two sureties for each case, however, the applicant has not been set at liberty as he is unable to arrange the sureties in aforesaid cases due to financial and lack of human resources. The applicant has been languishing in jail since 23.10.2023.

4. The prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is an indigent person and he is not in a position to arrange the surety, therefore, he may be permitted to produce a single surety like minimum amount for the aforesaid three cases so that he could be set at liberty in pursuance of the bail orders.

5. Per-contra, learned A.G.A. contends that sureties serve an important role in securing presence of accused before the court, but fairly admits that sureties should be just and reasonable.

6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, this Court finds that the demand of multiple sureties is unreasonable.

7. The right of fundamental liberties of the applicant is being curtailed on account of his poverty and inability to arrange multiple sureties for cases instituted against him.

8. The trial court is directed to release the applicant on his furnishing one single surety and may seek personal bond separately in all the aforesaid cases.

9. With the aforesaid observations the application is allowed."

10. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and nature of offences in which, the applicant was granted bail in July 2025 itself in four cases, pertaining to same police station, and the plea raised in paragraph 8 of the affidavit that the applicant is unable to arrange for sureties and bonds relating to different persons and, therefore, is detained despite having been granted bail, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the present application in the light of afore-quoted orders.

11. Accordingly, the application is allowed.

12. Let the applicant-Naeem be released on bail in all four cases pursuant to orders passed in the cases mentioned in second paragraph of this order on furnishing of two sureties of Rs.1,00,000/- each and on furnishing personal bonds in all the cases. One of the sureties shall be of family 5 NA528 No. 32564 of 2025 member of the applicant. Sureties so furnished shall hold good in all four cases.

13. The terms of bail orders granted in aforesaid cases stand modified to the above extent. September 8, 2025 Jyotsana (Kshitij Shailendra,J.)

1. Heard Shri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This application U/S 528 BNSS has been filed with the following prayer:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the learned Courts below to accept the same sureties and bonds as furnished by the applicant in accordance with law for releasing the applicant on bail during the pendency of trial in the criminal cases pending in the learned courts below which are total four in numbers i.e. 1. Case Crime No. 404 of 2016, U/s 307, 420, 467, 468, 414 of IPC., P.S. Kotwali, District Muzaffar Nagar. 2. Case Crime No. 1924 of 2016, U/s 307, 420, 467, 468, 471, 414 of IPC., P.S. Kotwali, District Muzaffar Nagar. 3. Case Crime No. 403 of 2016, U/s 394, 411 of IPC., P.S. Kotwali, District Muzaffar Nagar. 4. Case Crime No. 2260 of 2017 U/s 392, 506 of IPC., P.S. Kotwali, District Muzaffar Nagar.” as shown in Paragraph No.7 of this affidavit." And/or to pass any suitable order or direction to which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."

3. In paragraph 8 of the affidavit, it is stated that though bail has been granted in all the four cases, applicant is unable to make arrangement of sureties and bonds relating to different persons and, therefore, he could not be released so far.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon order of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 29.10.2018 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.8915 of 2018 (Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh) and submission has been made 2 NA528 No. 32564 of 2025 that when bail is granted to an accused in various cases, directing arranging the sureties in all cases, High Court can modify the condition in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. permitting release of the accused on bail on furnishing only one or two sureties.

5. Reliance has also been placed on an order dated 03.10.2024 passed by this Court in Application U/S 528 BNSS No.33571 of 2024 (Javed vs. State of U.P.) wherein under identical circumstances, accused concerned was released on bail in three cases and this Court, considering the requirement of sureties in all cases, permitted release of accused on his furnishing only one surety and personal bond separately in all cases.

6. Learned A.G.A. submits that since the accused-applicant has been granted bail in July, 2025 and two orders have been passed by Sessions Court and two by Magisterial Court, appropriate directions may be issued considering the said situation and in light of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, as noted above.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court, first of all, deems it appropriate to reproduce the orders relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant.

8. The order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hani Nishad (supra) reads as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is said to have been involved in 31 criminal cases for various offences. The Trial Court granted bail in all the 31 cases by different orders inter alia on condition of arranging two sureties each in all the cases. The petitioner moved the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, contending that it was impossible for the petitioner to arrange 62 sureties. It is the case of the petitioner that the High Court had in similar circumstances granted bail to the petitioner with two sureties of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) in the case under Gangster Act and the same sureties were to be the sureties in all other cases as well, by an order dated 21.9.2017. The petitioner was directed to execute personal bond of 3 NA528 No. 32564 of 2025 Rs. 30,000/- in each case. However, by the impugned order, the High Court has modified the conditions of bail imposed by the Trial Court in the instant cases by directing the Trial Court to accept one common surety for all the cases and one surety each for the 31 cases. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the Court has granted bail to the petitioner, the petitioner is unable to execute the bail bonds because of the onerous conditions of bail imposed particularly the condition of producing 31 sureties. Considering the submissions, the impugned order is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) and the same bond shall hold good for all 31 cases. 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. With these observations, the Special Leave Petitions are disposed of. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of."

9. The order of Co-ordinate Bench dated 03.10.2024 passed in Javed (supra) reads as under:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State- respondent, and perused material on record.

2. By means of the present application, the applicant has sought for a suitable direction to the court of learned trial court to consider sureties and personal bond in one case treating the same for all the three cases, in which the applicant has been granted bail by the trial court.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been enlarged on bail by the trial court in three cases; (i) vide order dated 25.1.2024 in Case Crime No.468 of 2023, under Sections 379, 411, 420 IPC, P.S. Budhana, District Muzaffar Nagar on furnishing personal bond of Rs.1 lac with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court; (ii) vide order dated 25.1.2024 in Case Crime No.472 of 2023, under Sections 379, 411, 420 IPC, P.S. Budhana, District Muzaffar Nagar on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1 lac with two sureties each in the like amount; and (iii) vide order dated 25.1.2024 in Case Crime No.473 of 2023, under Section 414 IPC & 4/25 of Arms Act, P.S. Budhana, District Muzaffar Nagar on furnishing personal bond of Rs.1 4 NA528 No. 32564 of 2025 lac with two sureties each in the like amount. He further submits that the trial court has directed the applicant to file separate personal bonds and two sureties for each case, however, the applicant has not been set at liberty as he is unable to arrange the sureties in aforesaid cases due to financial and lack of human resources. The applicant has been languishing in jail since 23.10.2023.

4. The prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is an indigent person and he is not in a position to arrange the surety, therefore, he may be permitted to produce a single surety like minimum amount for the aforesaid three cases so that he could be set at liberty in pursuance of the bail orders.

5. Per-contra, learned A.G.A. contends that sureties serve an important role in securing presence of accused before the court, but fairly admits that sureties should be just and reasonable.

6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, this Court finds that the demand of multiple sureties is unreasonable.

7. The right of fundamental liberties of the applicant is being curtailed on account of his poverty and inability to arrange multiple sureties for cases instituted against him.

8. The trial court is directed to release the applicant on his furnishing one single surety and may seek personal bond separately in all the aforesaid cases.

9. With the aforesaid observations the application is allowed."

10. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and nature of offences in which, the applicant was granted bail in July 2025 itself in four cases, pertaining to same police station, and the plea raised in paragraph 8 of the affidavit that the applicant is unable to arrange for sureties and bonds relating to different persons and, therefore, is detained despite having been granted bail, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the present application in the light of afore-quoted orders.

11. Accordingly, the application is allowed.

12. Let the applicant-Naeem be released on bail in all four cases pursuant to orders passed in the cases mentioned in second paragraph of this order on furnishing of two sureties of Rs.1,00,000/- each and on furnishing personal bonds in all the cases. One of the sureties shall be of family 5 NA528 No. 32564 of 2025 member of the applicant. Sureties so furnished shall hold good in all four cases.

13. The terms of bail orders granted in aforesaid cases stand modified to the above extent. September 8, 2025 Jyotsana (Kshitij Shailendra,J.)