Allahabad High Court

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This application has been filed for the following prayer:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application under 528 of B.N.S.S. and modify the conditions of bail orders to the extent that two sureties for each cases and release of the applicant in (i) Case Crime No. 199 of 2024, under Section 307 IPC, 3/25/27 Arms Act, Police Station Link Road, District Ghaziabad in which the applicant enlarged on bail on 22.07.2024, (ii) Case Crime No. 183 of 2024, under Sections 392, 411 I.P.C., Police Station Link Road, District Ghaziabad in which the applicant enlarged on bail on 16.08.2024, (iii) Case Crime No. 321 of 2024, under Section 392 I.P.C., Police Station Indrapuram, District Ghaziabad in which the applicant enlarged on bail order dated 13.08.2024, (iv) Case Crime No. 198 of 2024, under Section 392 I.P.C., Police Station Link Road, District Ghaziabad in which the applicant enlarged on bail order dated

06.09.2024, (v) Case Crime No. 192 of 2024, under Sections 392, 411 I.P.C., Police Station Link Road, District Ghaziabad in which the applicant enlarged on bail order dated 09.09.2024, (vi) Case Crime No. 421 2024, under Sections 392, 411 I.P.C., Police Station Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad in which the applicant enlarged on bail order dated

09.09.2024, (vii) Case Crime No. 428 of 2024, under Sections 307 I.P.C. 3/25/27 Arms Act, Police Station Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad in which the applicant enlarged on bail order dated 04.10.2024 and (viii) Case 2 NA528 No. 46181 of 2025 Crime No. 278 of 2024, under Sections 2/3 Gangster Act, Police Station Link Road, District Ghaziabad in which the applicant enlarged on bail order dated 03.04.2025, in which the applicant released on bail and modify the orders above to the extent the two common sureties which has been arranged by the applicant/deponent and same shall hold good in all eight cases, otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the trial court to release the applicant after taking the two sureties in all eight cases after modified the above mentioned orders and/or pass such other and further order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."

3. It is contended that in all the aforesaid cases the applicant has been released on bail, however, since all the bail orders contain requirement of furnishing two sureties, the applicant is unable to furnish 16 sureties in all and may be permitted to furnish only one surety, which may be held good in all the said eight cases. Reliance has also been placed on order dated

07.03.2025 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 7559 of 2025 (Santosh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and another).

4. Learned A.G.A. submits that bail orders rightly contain terms for furnishing separate sureties and the courts concerned were not under obligation to mention that the applicant shall be released on furnishing single surety.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky Vs. State of U.P." S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 8914-8915/2018 decided on

29.10.2018 has granted relief in similar fact situation. The order 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 3 NA528 No. 46181 of 2025 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 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."

6. The coordinate Bench of this Court in the order dated 07.03.2025 passed in Santosh Kumar (supra) in para 7 and 8 has held as under:- "7. Therefore, the trial court is directed to release the applicant on 4 NA528 No. 46181 of 2025 furnishing the personal bonds for each case and two sureties to the satisfaction of the Court concerned for all twenty three cases. For clarity, if the applicant furnishes personal bonds against each case to the satisfaction of the trial court and two sureties against any of the cases referred herein above, he shall be released in all the twenty three cases. The trial Court shall not press for separate sureties for each case to release the applicant in compliance of bail orders.

8. With the aforesaid observations the application is allowed and decided accordingly."

7. In view of the aforesaid proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, the applicant has made out a case for grant of relief.

8. Present application is, accordingly, allowed.

9. Let the applicant Ajay be released on bail in all the aforesaid cases pursuant to the eight bail orders passed in his favour on furnishing two sureties of Rs. 1,00,000/- each in any one case and personal bond in all the cases. One of the sureties shall be of a family member. Sureties so furnished shall hold good in all eight cases.

10. The bail orders granted in the aforesaid cases stand modified to that extent. November 21, 2025 AKShukla/- (Kshitij Shailendra,J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This application has been filed for the following prayer:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application under 528 of B.N.S.S. and modify the conditions of bail orders to the extent that two sureties for each cases and release of the applicant in (i) Case Crime No. 199 of 2024, under Section 307 IPC, 3/25/27 Arms Act, Police Station Link Road, District Ghaziabad in which the applicant enlarged on bail on 22.07.2024, (ii) Case Crime No. 183 of 2024, under Sections 392, 411 I.P.C., Police Station Link Road, District Ghaziabad in which the applicant enlarged on bail on 16.08.2024, (iii) Case Crime No. 321 of 2024, under Section 392 I.P.C., Police Station Indrapuram, District Ghaziabad in which the applicant enlarged on bail order dated 13.08.2024, (iv) Case Crime No. 198 of 2024, under Section 392 I.P.C., Police Station Link Road, District Ghaziabad in which the applicant enlarged on bail order dated

06.09.2024, (v) Case Crime No. 192 of 2024, under Sections 392, 411 I.P.C., Police Station Link Road, District Ghaziabad in which the applicant enlarged on bail order dated 09.09.2024, (vi) Case Crime No. 421 2024, under Sections 392, 411 I.P.C., Police Station Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad in which the applicant enlarged on bail order dated

09.09.2024, (vii) Case Crime No. 428 of 2024, under Sections 307 I.P.C. 3/25/27 Arms Act, Police Station Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad in which the applicant enlarged on bail order dated 04.10.2024 and (viii) Case 2 NA528 No. 46181 of 2025 Crime No. 278 of 2024, under Sections 2/3 Gangster Act, Police Station Link Road, District Ghaziabad in which the applicant enlarged on bail order dated 03.04.2025, in which the applicant released on bail and modify the orders above to the extent the two common sureties which has been arranged by the applicant/deponent and same shall hold good in all eight cases, otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the trial court to release the applicant after taking the two sureties in all eight cases after modified the above mentioned orders and/or pass such other and further order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."

3. It is contended that in all the aforesaid cases the applicant has been released on bail, however, since all the bail orders contain requirement of furnishing two sureties, the applicant is unable to furnish 16 sureties in all and may be permitted to furnish only one surety, which may be held good in all the said eight cases. Reliance has also been placed on order dated

07.03.2025 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 7559 of 2025 (Santosh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and another).

4. Learned A.G.A. submits that bail orders rightly contain terms for furnishing separate sureties and the courts concerned were not under obligation to mention that the applicant shall be released on furnishing single surety.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky Vs. State of U.P." S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 8914-8915/2018 decided on

29.10.2018 has granted relief in similar fact situation. The order 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 3 NA528 No. 46181 of 2025 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 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."

6. The coordinate Bench of this Court in the order dated 07.03.2025 passed in Santosh Kumar (supra) in para 7 and 8 has held as under:- "7. Therefore, the trial court is directed to release the applicant on 4 NA528 No. 46181 of 2025 furnishing the personal bonds for each case and two sureties to the satisfaction of the Court concerned for all twenty three cases. For clarity, if the applicant furnishes personal bonds against each case to the satisfaction of the trial court and two sureties against any of the cases referred herein above, he shall be released in all the twenty three cases. The trial Court shall not press for separate sureties for each case to release the applicant in compliance of bail orders.

8. With the aforesaid observations the application is allowed and decided accordingly."

7. In view of the aforesaid proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, the applicant has made out a case for grant of relief.

8. Present application is, accordingly, allowed.

9. Let the applicant Ajay be released on bail in all the aforesaid cases pursuant to the eight bail orders passed in his favour on furnishing two sureties of Rs. 1,00,000/- each in any one case and personal bond in all the cases. One of the sureties shall be of a family member. Sureties so furnished shall hold good in all eight cases.

10. The bail orders granted in the aforesaid cases stand modified to that extent. November 21, 2025 AKShukla/- (Kshitij Shailendra,J.)