Allahabad High Court
LUCKYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The application is dismissed as there is no cause of action to direct the trial courts to accept a single surety bond for the four cases.
Summary
The applicant, Lucky, filed an application under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking a direction that the trial courts allow a single surety bond for four separate criminal cases, relying on a Supreme Court decision in Hani Nishad v. State of U.P. The State opposed the prayer. The court noted that the applicant had never actually filed any bail bond in any of the four cases and there was no specific denial by the trial courts requiring separate sureties. Consequently, the court found no prejudice or cause of action to grant the relief sought. The application was therefore disposed without any order for a single surety, though the applicant was permitted to file a fresh application for two sureties and a personal bond in light of the Supreme Court precedent.
Issues considered
- Whether an applicant can be directed to file a single surety bond for multiple criminal cases under Section 528 CrPC based on the Supreme Court's Hani Nishad judgment
- Whether the absence of any bail bond filing or denial by the trial courts creates a cause of action for the relief sought
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
Subjects
- bail
- surety bond
- Section 528 CrPC
- multiple criminal cases
- Supreme Court precedent
- application dismissed
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 15174 of 2026
Lucky
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kiran Tiwari, Mahesh Chandra Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 77
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
2. Present application has been preferred with prayer to direct the learned
trial courts not to insist the applicant to file separate surety bonds in the
four criminal cases in light of Hon'ble Supreme Court order dated
29.10.2018 passed in Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky Vs.
State of U.P. Special Leave to appeal (Crl.) No.8914-8915 of 2018 and
may also be directed to the learned trial courts to accept one surety in lieu
of all four criminal cases mentioned below:
i. Case Crime No.417 of 2025, under Sections 303(2), 317(4), 111(2) kha-
BNS [corresponding Sections 379, 414 IPC] Police Station Sadar Bazar,
District Agra.
ii. Case Crime No.117 of 2025, under Sections 303(2), 317(2) BNS
[corresponding Sections 379, 414 IPC] Police Station Malpura, District
Agra.
iii. Case Crime No.404 of 2025, under Sections 303(2), 317(4), 111 BNS
[corresponding Sections 379, 414 IPC] Police Station Sadar Bazar,
District Agra.
iv. Case Crime No.99 of 2025, under Sections 303(2), 317(4), 111(2) BNS
[corresponding Sections 379, 414 IPC] Police Station Sadar Bazar,
District Agra.
NA528 No. 15174 of 2026
2
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicant sought the direction of
this Court in shape of instructing the trial court to permit two sureties for
all four cases, wherein the applicant has already been enlarged on bail.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer sought
through the instant application.
5. During the course of argument, a precise query has been raised before
learned counsel for applicant that whether applicant has ever preferred the
bail bond in pursuance to the aforesaid cases wherein he has been
enlarged on bail and if so, whether there is a specific denial from learned
trial court in shape of asking separate sureties for separate cases. In
response to the query, learned counsel for applicant fairly submitted that
applicant never preferred any bail bond in pursuance to any of aforesaid
cases in which he has been enlarged on bail and there is no specific denial
from learned trial court concerned.
6. In view of aforementioned discussions and after perusing the records,
this Court finds that no prejudice has been caused to the applicant as
applicant never intended to prefer bail bonds in pursuance to first bail
order to the last bail order granted in his favour, which are consecutively
04 in numbers, but at no point of time he intended to prefer bail bonds and
as such there is hardly any denial available in record with regard to two
surety in each and ever bail bond. Hence, no cause of action arises in
favour of applicant to pursue the instant application.
7. The instant application stands disposed of accordingly.
8. However, the applicant will be at liberty to prefer application in shape
of considering two sureties and personal bond in all the 04 cases, wherein
he has been enlarged on bail in light of judgement rendered by Hon'ble
Apex Court in case of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky Vs.
State of U.P., decided on 29.10.2018 in Petition(s) for Special Leave to
Appeal (Crl.) No. 8914-8915 of 2018.
May 7, 2026
Ashish/-
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ASHISH KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…