Bijnor v. Case Crime No
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 34285 of 2025 Anas State of U.P. Versus .....Applicant(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Kushagra Srivastava, Shahrukh : G.A. Court No. - 48 HON'BLE 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 be pleased direct the court concern to accept two sureties which is being submitted by the applicant in respect of:- I. Case Crime No. 198 of 2024, under Section 109(1), 3(5), 317(2) of B.N.S., Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, District- Bijnor and same surety bond be accepted in other cases:- II. Case Crime No. 143 of 2024, under Section 379, 411 of I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, District- Bijnor. III. Case Crime No. 140 of 2024, under Section 379, 411 of I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, District- Bijnor. IV. Case Crime No. 139 of 2024, under Section 379, 411 of I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, District- Bijnor. V. Case Crime No. 74 of 2024, under Section 379, 411 of I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, District- Bijnor. VI. Case Crime No. 161 of 2024, under Section 380 of I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, District- Bijnor. VII. Case Crime No. 2341 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 47 of 2024, under Section 380 of I.P.C., Police Station- Badapur, District- Bijnor., respectively." 3. It is contended that in all the aforesaid cases the applicant has been released on bail, 2 NA528 No. 34285 of 2025 however, since all the bail orders contain requirement of furnishing two sureties, the applicant is unable to furnish 14 sureties in all and may be permitted to furnish only one surety, which may be held good in all the said seven 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 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/- 3 NA528 No. 34285 of 2025 (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.
Decision
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 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 Anas be released on bail in all the aforesaid cases pursuant to the seven bail orders passed in his favour on furnishing two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- 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 seven cases. 10. The bail orders granted in the aforesaid cases stand modified to that extent. September 10, 2025 Pkb/ Kshitij Shailendra,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRAMOD KUMAR BAJPAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad