State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. vs Party(s)

1. The applicant is aggrieved by the two sureties fixed in each case while granting bail to him by the learned trial court in the following four cases: i. Case Crime No. 351 of 2006 under Section 21/22 NDPS Act, P.S. G.R.P. Charbagh, Lucknow granted bail by order dated

06.08.2025. ii. Case Crime No. 729 of 2011 under Section 307, 379, 411, 328 I.P.C., P.S. G.R.P., Lucknow granted bail by order dated

30.06.2025. iii. Case Crime No. 246 of 2023 under Section 328, 41/411, 413, 414 I.P.C., P.S. Gosaiganj, Lucknow granted bail by order dated

09.06.2025. iv. Case Crime No. 210 of 2023 under Section 328, 379, 411 I.P.C. P.S. Gosaiganj, Lucknow by order dated 29.05.2025.

2. Shri Uma Kant Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been enlarged on bail in 4 cases depicted above. Two sureties have been fixed in each of the 2 A482 No. 7389 of 2025 aforesaid cases depicted above. Hence the applicant is required to furnish 8 sureties to be set forth at liberty pursuant to the aforesaid bail orders. The applicant is unable to furnish the aforesaid sureties in each of the aforesaid cases. The demands of two sureties in each of the 4 cases has become very onerous for the applicant to comply with, and has virtually defeated his right to enjoy his liberty on the strength of the bail granted by this Court. He has relied upon the judgement of this Court in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. (Application U/S 482 No.2613 of 2023) and Prakash Nut And 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. (Application U/S 528 No.994 of 2025) as well as the Supreme Court in Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky vs. State of Uttar Pradesh in SLP (Crl. No. 8914-8915/2018).

3. Learned AGA submits that the sureties have to be fixed by the learned trial court as per law.

4. Heard learned counsels for the parties.

5. While examining the issue pertaining to failure of accused persons to furnish sureties which are arbitrarily or mechanically fixed by the learned trial courts, this Court in Arvind Singh (supra) passed the following directions: "24. However despite unequivocal holdings of various constitutional courts the trial courts continue to adopt a rote response to a dynamic problem and approach the issue of fixation of sureties in a mechanical manner and neglect to make requisite enquiries as contemplated in the preceding parts of the judgment. The duties of the trial courts as well as other agencies while fixing sureties can be summed up as under:- (1) In case a prisoner cannot arrange the sureties fixed by the trial court the former can make an application to the learned trial court for a lesser surety. Material facts relating to the socioeconomic status and roots in the community of the prisoner shall be stated in the application. (2) Similarly it is bounden duty of the DLSA to examine the status of the prisoners who have been enlarged on bail but are not set at liberty within seven days of the bail order. In case the prisoners cannot arrange for sureties they may be advised and assisted to promptly move an 3 A482 No. 7389 of 2025 application for refixation of the surety in light of this judgment. (3) Once the prisoner makes such application the trial court shall make an enquiry consistent with this judgment and pass a reasoned order depicting consideration of relevant criteria for fixing sureties with utmost expedition. (4) Every trial court is under an obligation to satisfy itself about the socioeconomic conditions of the prisoner and probability of absconding and his roots in the community and fix sureties commensurate with the same. The State authorities or other credible agencies as the court may direct to promptly provide the requisite details. (5). In case the prisoner is from another State and is unable to produce sureties, sureties from the prisoner's home district or any other place of his choice determined by the court of competent jurisdiction of the said district and State shall be accepted by the trial court. (6) The prisoner/counsel may state the details of the socio-economic status of the prisoner in the bail application in the first instance. This will facilitate an expeditious consideration of the issue related to sureties.

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

6. Recently this Court in Prakash Nut (supra) has observed: "6. A large number of the persons who belong to marginalized sections of the society or are financially destitute are often unable to arrange or provide sureties fixed arbitrarily by the learned trial courts. To deal with this situation the Constitutional Courts have held that the order granting bail cannot be defeated by arbitrary surety demands and have cautioned against determining sureties in a mechanical manner. Obligation is cast by law upon the learned trial court to apply its mind to the socioeconomic status of the accused and other relevant factors in a case while determining the sureties to be furnished by the said accused.

8. Further, this Court has also repeatedly directed that the right of liberty after grant of bail should not be frustrated by arbitrary demands of sureties. Onerous surety conditions which are unrelated socioeconomic status of the applicants or are oblivious to various relevant considerations in the facts of a case end up curtailing the personal liberty of an accused after he is enlarged on bail."

7. The Supreme Court in Hani Nishad(supra) held as under: "8. Considering the submissions, the impugned order is modified to the 4 A482 No. 7389 of 2025 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."

8. In the wake of preceding discussion, the matter is remitted to the learned court below, District-Lucknow. to fix two sureties

9. Learned trial court/ learned court below, District-Lucknow is to his/her satisfaction after directed ascertaining the socioeconomic condition of the applicant and the said sureties shall be accepted in all the aforesaid 4 cases in light of Arvind Singh (supra), Prakash Nut (supra) and Hani Nishad (supra).

10. The application U/S 482 is disposed of. September 10, 2025 Vandit (Ajay Bhanot,J.) VANDIT AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. The applicant is aggrieved by the two sureties fixed in each case while granting bail to him by the learned trial court in the following four cases: i. Case Crime No. 351 of 2006 under Section 21/22 NDPS Act, P.S. G.R.P. Charbagh, Lucknow granted bail by order dated

06.08.2025. ii. Case Crime No. 729 of 2011 under Section 307, 379, 411, 328 I.P.C., P.S. G.R.P., Lucknow granted bail by order dated

30.06.2025. iii. Case Crime No. 246 of 2023 under Section 328, 41/411, 413, 414 I.P.C., P.S. Gosaiganj, Lucknow granted bail by order dated

09.06.2025. iv. Case Crime No. 210 of 2023 under Section 328, 379, 411 I.P.C. P.S. Gosaiganj, Lucknow by order dated 29.05.2025.

2. Shri Uma Kant Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been enlarged on bail in 4 cases depicted above. Two sureties have been fixed in each of the 2 A482 No. 7389 of 2025 aforesaid cases depicted above. Hence the applicant is required to furnish 8 sureties to be set forth at liberty pursuant to the aforesaid bail orders. The applicant is unable to furnish the aforesaid sureties in each of the aforesaid cases. The demands of two sureties in each of the 4 cases has become very onerous for the applicant to comply with, and has virtually defeated his right to enjoy his liberty on the strength of the bail granted by this Court. He has relied upon the judgement of this Court in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. (Application U/S 482 No.2613 of 2023) and Prakash Nut And 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. (Application U/S 528 No.994 of 2025) as well as the Supreme Court in Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky vs. State of Uttar Pradesh in SLP (Crl. No. 8914-8915/2018).

3. Learned AGA submits that the sureties have to be fixed by the learned trial court as per law.

4. Heard learned counsels for the parties.

5. While examining the issue pertaining to failure of accused persons to furnish sureties which are arbitrarily or mechanically fixed by the learned trial courts, this Court in Arvind Singh (supra) passed the following directions: "24. However despite unequivocal holdings of various constitutional courts the trial courts continue to adopt a rote response to a dynamic problem and approach the issue of fixation of sureties in a mechanical manner and neglect to make requisite enquiries as contemplated in the preceding parts of the judgment. The duties of the trial courts as well as other agencies while fixing sureties can be summed up as under:- (1) In case a prisoner cannot arrange the sureties fixed by the trial court the former can make an application to the learned trial court for a lesser surety. Material facts relating to the socioeconomic status and roots in the community of the prisoner shall be stated in the application. (2) Similarly it is bounden duty of the DLSA to examine the status of the prisoners who have been enlarged on bail but are not set at liberty within seven days of the bail order. In case the prisoners cannot arrange for sureties they may be advised and assisted to promptly move an 3 A482 No. 7389 of 2025 application for refixation of the surety in light of this judgment. (3) Once the prisoner makes such application the trial court shall make an enquiry consistent with this judgment and pass a reasoned order depicting consideration of relevant criteria for fixing sureties with utmost expedition. (4) Every trial court is under an obligation to satisfy itself about the socioeconomic conditions of the prisoner and probability of absconding and his roots in the community and fix sureties commensurate with the same. The State authorities or other credible agencies as the court may direct to promptly provide the requisite details. (5). In case the prisoner is from another State and is unable to produce sureties, sureties from the prisoner's home district or any other place of his choice determined by the court of competent jurisdiction of the said district and State shall be accepted by the trial court. (6) The prisoner/counsel may state the details of the socio-economic status of the prisoner in the bail application in the first instance. This will facilitate an expeditious consideration of the issue related to sureties.

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

6. Recently this Court in Prakash Nut (supra) has observed: "6. A large number of the persons who belong to marginalized sections of the society or are financially destitute are often unable to arrange or provide sureties fixed arbitrarily by the learned trial courts. To deal with this situation the Constitutional Courts have held that the order granting bail cannot be defeated by arbitrary surety demands and have cautioned against determining sureties in a mechanical manner. Obligation is cast by law upon the learned trial court to apply its mind to the socioeconomic status of the accused and other relevant factors in a case while determining the sureties to be furnished by the said accused.

8. Further, this Court has also repeatedly directed that the right of liberty after grant of bail should not be frustrated by arbitrary demands of sureties. Onerous surety conditions which are unrelated socioeconomic status of the applicants or are oblivious to various relevant considerations in the facts of a case end up curtailing the personal liberty of an accused after he is enlarged on bail."

7. The Supreme Court in Hani Nishad(supra) held as under: "8. Considering the submissions, the impugned order is modified to the 4 A482 No. 7389 of 2025 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."

8. In the wake of preceding discussion, the matter is remitted to the learned court below, District-Lucknow. to fix two sureties

9. Learned trial court/ learned court below, District-Lucknow is to his/her satisfaction after directed ascertaining the socioeconomic condition of the applicant and the said sureties shall be accepted in all the aforesaid 4 cases in light of Arvind Singh (supra), Prakash Nut (supra) and Hani Nishad (supra).

10. The application U/S 482 is disposed of. September 10, 2025 Vandit (Ajay Bhanot,J.) VANDIT AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench