Allahabad High Court
AJAYversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIKRAM D CHAUHAN
Holding
The High Court held that a single personal bond of Rs 30,000 and two common sureties may be accepted for all six bail cases.
Summary
Petitioner Ajay, who had been granted bail in six criminal cases, sought relief from the High Court to avoid furnishing separate sureties for each case, requesting that a single common surety be accepted. He relied on a Supreme Court judgment in Hani Nishad v. State of UP (SLA No. 8915 of 2018) which permitted a common surety and a personal bond of Rs 30,000 to cover multiple bail orders. The High Court examined whether the trial court could be directed to modify bail conditions in line with that precedent. It held that, following the Supreme Court’s guidance, the trial court should accept one personal bond of Rs 30,000 and two sureties whose bond would be valid for all six cases. Accordingly, the court issued directions to the trial court and disposed of the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether a common surety and a single personal bond can be accepted for multiple bail applications involving different offences.
- Whether the High Court may modify bail conditions in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in Hani Nishad v. State of UP.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 3/25
- Indian Penal Code — s. 392, 396, 411, 412, 414
- U.P. Gangster Act — s. 2/3
Subjects
- bail
- common surety
- multiple cases
- Supreme Court precedent
- criminal procedure
- personal bond
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12227 of 2026
Ajay
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Devashish Tripathi, Sunil Kumar Gaur
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 55
HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned AGA for the State.
2. The petition is filed with the following prayer:
" (i) To, issue suitable order or direction to the Ld. Court concerned to accept the
above said two bail bonds and sureties in six cases i.e. (i) Case Crime No. 161 of
2017, u/s 392 & 411 IPC, P.S.- Achhnera, District- Agra., (ii) Case Crime No. 197 of
2017, u/s 392 & 411 IPC, P.S. Achhnera, District- Agra, (iii) Case Crime No. 511 of
2017, u/s 396 & 412 IPC, P.S. Sikandra, District- Agra, (iv) Case Crime No. 544 of
2017, u/s 3/25 Arms Act., P.S.- Sikandra, District- Agra, (v) Case Crime No. 546 of
2017, u/s 414 IPC, P.S.- Sikandra, District- Agra and (vi) Case Crime No. 232 of
2018, u/s 2/3 U.P. Gangster Act., P.S.-Sikandra, District- Agra as security, so the
petitioner may be released on bail. And/or"
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has been enlarged
on bail in the above mentioned six cases, however petitioner is not in a
position to produce the separate sureties for each bail order. He submits that
common sureties be accepted. He has placed reliance over the judgment of
Hon'ble The Apex Court passed in the case of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad
Imran @ Vikky Vs. The State of UP, in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)
No.8915 of 2018 passed on 29.10.2018. The operative portion of the order
of Hon'ble the Apex Court is quoted herein below:
"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.
A227 No. 12227 of 2026
2
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."
3. In view of the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court, the trial court
is directed to accept one common surety for all the six cases. Petitioner shall
execute a personal bond and the same bond shall hold good for all six cases.
There shall be two sureties who shall execute the bond and shall hold good
for all the six 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 six cases.
5. With the above directions, this petition is disposed of.
September 8, 2026
D. Tamang
(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
DHIRENDRA TAMANG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…