Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

CHANDRABHAN SINGH YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided

Holding

The court held that no cause of action exists to entertain the application for a common bail bond and therefore dismissed it.

Summary

The applicant, Chandrabhan Singh Yadav, who had been granted anticipatory bail in eight criminal cases, filed an application under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking a direction that the trial courts accept two common bail bonds for all those cases. The court examined whether the applicant had ever offered such bonds and whether any trial court had specifically denied a common bond. It found that the applicant had never submitted any bail bond and there was no denial by any trial court, resulting in no prejudice to the applicant. Consequently, the court held that there was no cause of action to entertain the application. The applicant was directed to file a fresh application before the concerned trial courts within 15 days, and the present application was disposed of.

Issues considered

  • Whether the applicant can be directed to submit a common bail bond for all cases where anticipatory bail has been granted.
  • Whether a cause of action exists for the applicant to seek such a direction in the absence of any prior bond submission or denial by the trial courts.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • bail bond
  • Section 528 CrPC
  • cause of action
  • high court procedure
  • bail application

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 34479 of 2026

Chandrabhan Singh Yadav
                                                             .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

State of U.P.
                                                                 .....Opposite
                                                                       Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Sanjoo Yadav, Shivajee Srivastava,
                                Shrikant Singh Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 79
                  HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA.

2. Present application has been preferred with prayer to direct the learned
court concerned to accept two bail bond in all the eight cases in which
applicant has already been extended anticipatory bail.

3. During course of argument, a precise query has been raised before
learned counsel for applicant that whether applicant has ever preferred
same two bond in all the cases wherein he has been extended anticipatory
bail and if so, whether there is a specific denial from learned trial court in
shape of asking separate bond 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 extended anticipatory 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 any anticipatory
bail order passed by learned court concerned, although applicant has
already been extended anticipatory bail in all the eight cases 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 common surety in each and
every bail bond. Hence, no cause of action arises in favour of applicant to
pursue the instant application.
                                                                                         NA528 No. 34479 of 2026
                                                                   2


                                    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


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.