Allahabad High Court
VISHALversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The Court held that no cause of action exists to grant a common bail bond and surety for the multiple cases, and therefore the application was disposed of.
Summary
The applicant, Vishal, filed an application under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking the court's direction to accept a single personal bond and surety for six separate bail cases in which he had already been granted bail. During hearing, it was clarified that the applicant had never actually furnished any bail bond in any of those cases and there was no specific denial by the trial courts requiring separate sureties. The High Court observed that no prejudice was caused to the applicant and that there was no cause of action to grant the relief sought. Consequently, the Court directed the applicant to file a fresh application before the concerned trial courts within 15 days, referencing the Apex Court judgments in Hani Nishad v. State of U.P. and Girish Gandhi v. State of U.P. The instant application was thereafter disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether an applicant can be directed to submit a common personal bond and surety for multiple bail orders under Section 528 CrPC
- Whether the absence of a prior bail bond or any 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
- personal bond
- surety
- Section 528 CrPC
- multiple cases
- application disposed
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 31628 of 2026
Vishal
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Suraj Singh Chauhan, Swati Agrawal
Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard Mrs. Swati Agrawal Srivastava, learned counsel for applicant
and learned AGA.
2. Present application has been preferred with prayer to direct the learned
court concerned to accept one personal bond and one surety of like
amount in all the six cases in which applicant has already been extended
bail.
3. During course of argument, a precise query has been raised before
learned counsel for applicant that whether applicant has ever preferred
same personal bond along with one same surety in all the 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 has 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.
4. In view of the aforementioned discussions and after perusing the
records, this Court finds that no prejudice has been caused to applicant as
he never intended to prefer bail bond in pursuance to any bail order
passed by learned court concerned, although applicant has already been
extended bail in all the cases but at no point of time, he intended to prefer
any bail bond and as such, there is hardly any denial available in record
with regard to common surety in each and every bail bond. Hence, no
NA528 No. 31628 of 2026
2
cause of action arises in favour of applicant to pursue the instant
application.
5. In view thereof, applicant is directed to prefer an application before
learned concerned court seeking the same prayer as sought through the
instant application within 15 days from today which shall be decided by
learned court concerned within next 15 days in light of judgement
rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in cases 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], Girish Gandhi vs. State of U.P. and others [2024 INSC 617,
decided on 22.08.2024].
6. The instant application stands disposed of, accordingly.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
September 8, 2026
Vivek Kr.
Digitally signed by :-
VIVEK KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…