Allahabad High Court
SUSHILversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
Holding
Two sureties from one case may be used as sureties for all ten cases, subject to a single personal bond.
Summary
The applicant, Sushil, has been incarcerated since 13 November 2025 in ten separate criminal cases filed under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act. Being indigent, he is unable to furnish the twenty sureties normally required for bail in each case. He previously obtained a bail order on 23 February 2026 but could not provide the two sureties demanded, resulting in continued detention. Relying on Supreme Court precedents (Hani Nishad v. State of UP and Girish Gandhi v. State of UP) that permit a single set of sureties to satisfy multiple bail applications, the applicant sought a direction under Section 528 of the Bail and Non‑Bailable Offences (B.N.S.) Act. The High Court allowed the use of two sureties from one case as sureties for all ten cases, conditioned upon the filing of a single personal bond, and disposed of the application.
Issues considered
- Whether a single set of sureties can be permitted for bail in multiple criminal cases pending against the same accused under Section 528 of the B.N.S. Act.
- Whether a single personal bond can be accepted for bail across all such cases.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 3/4/25/28
- Bail and Non‑Bailable Offences (B.N.S.) Act — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109(1), 303(2), 305, 305(a), 317(4), 331(4)
Subjects
- bail
- sureties
- multiple cases
- Section 528
- personal bond
- indigent accused
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 10727 of 2026
Sushil
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Haya Rizvi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 81
HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
1. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed with a
prayer to issue a direction to the court concerned to release the applicant on
bail on the basis of a personal bond and two sureties in ten cases, which are
as under:-
(i) Case Crime No. 366 of 2025, u/s 305, 331(4), 317(4) B.N.S., Police
Station Bhopa, District Muzaffarnagar.
(ii) Case Crime No. 86 of 2025, u/s 305(a), 331(4) Β.Ν.S., Police Station
Fugana, District Muzaffarnagar.
(iii) Case Crime No. 91 of 2025, u/s 303(2), B.N.S., Police Station Bhora
Kalan, District Muzaffarnagar.
(iv) Case Crime No. 92 of 2025, u/s 303(2), B.N.S., Police Station Bhora
Kalan, District Muzaffarnagar.
(v) Case Crime No. 381 of 2025, u/s 109(1), 317(4) Β.Ν.S., 3/4/25/28 Arms
Act, Police Station Bhopa, District Muzaffarnagar.
(vi) Case Crime No. 93 of 2025, u/s 303(2), B.N.S., Police Station Bhora
Kalan, District Muzaffarnagar.
(vii) Case Crime No. 94 of 2025, u/s 303(2) B.N.S., Police Station Bhora
Kalan, District Muzaffarnagar.
NA528 No. 10727 of 2026
2
(viii) Case Crime No. 95 of 2025, u/s 303(2), B.N.S., Police Station Bhora
Kalan, District Muzaffarnagar.
(ix) Case Crime No. 380 of 2025, u/s 317(4) B.N.S., Police Station Bhopa,
District Muzaffarnagar.
(x) Case Crime No. 342 of 2025, u/s 305(a), 331(4) B.N.S., Police Station
Bhopa, District Muzaffarnagar.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
languishing in jail since 13.11.2025. He is a very poor person and he cannot
arrange twenty sureties in aforesaid ten cases. The last bail order was passed
in favour of the applicant on 23.02.2026 but he could not arrange two
sureties, therefore, he has been languishing in jail.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the order of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.8914-
8915/2018 (Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky Vs. The State of
UP), as well as Girish Gandhi vs. State of U.P. And Others, 2024 (10) SCC
674, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of the said case directing
that the sureties in one of the case shall be good enough for sureties in all the
said cases.
4. Considering the submissions made at the bar and on perusal of the said
judgment, it is directed that two sureties of one case shall be permitted to act
as sureties in aforesaid ten cases subject to furnishing of one personal bond.
The personal bond submitted by the applicant in one of the case shall be
accepted in aforesaid ten cases.
5. The application is disposed off.
(Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)
March 18, 2026
Radhika
Digitally signed by :-
RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…