Allahabad High Court
VINESHversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The court held that no cause of action exists to entertain the application as the applicant never intended to prefer bail bonds, and therefore dismissed the application.
Summary
The applicant sought a direction under Section 528 of the CrPC for the trial court to accept a personal bail bond and two sureties in five cases where bail had already been granted. The court queried whether the applicant had previously offered such bonds and whether the trial court had specifically denied them. The applicant’s counsel confirmed that no bail bonds had ever been offered and there was no denial by the trial court. The High Court found no prejudice to the applicant and concluded that no cause of action existed to entertain the application. Consequently, the court directed the applicant to file a fresh application for the same relief within 15 days, referencing Supreme Court judgments, and disposed of the present application.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to a direction for the trial court to accept a personal bail bond with two sureties in each of the five bail orders already granted.
- Whether any specific denial by the trial court regarding the bail bond and sureties exists, giving rise to a cause of action.
Subjects
- bail
- personal bond
- surety
- Section 528 CrPC
- procedural order
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 33122 of 2026
Vinesh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pramod Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for State.
2. Present application has been preferred with prayer to direct the learned
court concerned to accept a personal bond and two sureties in all five cases,
mentioned in the prayer clause, 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 two same sureties 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 bonds in pursuance to first bail order to the last bail
order granted in his favour, which are consecutively five 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.
NA528 No. 33122 of 2026
2
5. In view thereof, applicant is hereby 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.
September 8, 2026
Saif
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…