Allahabad High Court
IBRAHIMversusSTATE OF U.P. THROUGH SECRETARY HOME UP AT LKO.
- Decided
- Bench
- GAUTAM CHOWDHARY
Holding
A single personal bond and two sureties may be accepted for all pending criminal cases against the applicant.
Summary
The applicant, Ibrahim, filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking the trial court’s permission to accept a single personal bond and two sureties for all four criminal cases pending against him. He had already been granted bail in each case but was unable to furnish separate surety bonds for each, leading to his continued detention. Relying on Sections 483‑490 of the BNSS and several Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the applicant argued that the law does not mandate separate bonds for each case. The State, represented by the Advocate General, did not contest the cited authorities. The Allahabad High Court held that the application was maintainable and ordered that one personal bond and two sureties be accepted for all four cases, thereby effecting the applicant’s release.
Issues considered
- Whether a single personal bond and two sureties can be accepted for multiple criminal cases against the same accused under Section 528 of the BNSS.
- Whether the provisions of the BNSS (Sections 483‑490) require separate bonds for each case.
- Whether prior Supreme Court and High Court decisions permit consolidation of bail bonds across cases.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27, 3, 5
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109(1)
- BNSS (B.N.S.S.) — s. 483, 484, 485, 486, 487, 488, 489, 490
- Indian Penal Code — s. 310(2), 311, 317(3), 324(5)
- Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 — s. 2
Subjects
- bail
- personal bond
- surety
- multiple criminal cases
- Section 528 BNSS
- consolidation of bail
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 37241 of 2026
Ibrahim
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Through Secretary Home Up At Lko.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shashi Shankar Tripathi, Utsav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 75
HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the
State.
2. The present application has been filed to direct the Trial Court/Court
concerned to consider and accept the personal bond and two sureties in
one criminal case treating the same for all the four criminal cases
mentioned in the paragraph no. 30 of the affidavit filed in support of of
the instant application.
3. Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant is unable to
arrange 6 sureties. Consequently, in spite of the fact that applicant has
already been released on bail in all four criminal cases pending against
him, the applicant has yet not been released from jail, as applicant has
failed to furnish separate surety bonds in all the cases. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, it is thus urged that applicant be directed to
furnish a common personal bond and common surety bonds of like
amount in all the cases. He therefore contends that appropriate direction
be issued to the concerned trial Court.
4. Record shows that applicant has been enlarged on bail in different case
crime number by the concerned Court vide following orders:-
(i) Case Crime No. 001 of 2026 Under Section 2 U.P. Gangsters and Anti
Social Activities (Prevention) Act 1986, Police Station Narkhi District
Firozabad (Present one )
NA528 No. 37241 of 2026
2
(ii) Case Crime No. 374 of 2025 Under Section 310(2), 311,
324(5),317(3) Β.N.S Police Station Narkhi District Firozabad
(iii) case crime no. 385/2025 under section 109 (1) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3/5/27 of Arms Act, Police Station
Narkhi, District Firozabad,
5. He has then referred to Sections- 483, 484, 485, 486, 487, 488, 489,
490 of B.N.S.S. (hereinafter to be referred as BNSS) and on basis thereof
contents that under the scheme of BNSS (hereinafter referred to as "the
BNSS") there is no mandatory requirement of furnishing separate
personal bonds as well as surety bonds for seeking enlargement on bail in
different case crime numbers.
6. On the aforesaid factual and legal premise, learned counsel for
applicant contends that such conditions which commensurate with the
facts and circumstances of present case, are liable to be imposed, so that
applicant who has been granted bail in all cases pending against him is
ultimately bailed out.
7. Reference has also been made to the orders passed by Supreme Court
dated 29.10.2018 in Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky Vs.
State of U.P. and 09.08.2021 in Ramwati Awasthi & Others Vs. State of
U.P. and Others. He has also referred to orders passed by this Court dated
15.03.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11380 of 2019,
(Rizwan alias Atta Vs. State of U.P.), reported in 2019 (107) ACC 894
and 21.11.2019 in Criminal Misc. Application (under Section 482
Cr.P.C.) No.40957 of 2019, (Mobin Vs. State of U.P.), wherein Court has
been modified the conditions of bail by providing that the personal bond
and two sureties furnished by applicant, be accepted in all the cases
pending against applicant. Photocopies of above orders have been
supplied by learned counsel for applicant which are taken on record.
8. On the aforesaid factual and legal premise, it is urged that present
application be allowed and two sureties furnished by applicant in one case
crime number be accepted as sureties in all the cases.
NA528 No. 37241 of 2026
3
9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed this application, but could not
dispute the orders relied upon by learned counsel for applicant.
10. In view of above, present application succeeds and is liable to be
allowed.
11. It is accordingly, provided that application shall be allowed to execute
one personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of court concerned
which shall hold in all four cases pending against present applicant.
(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
September 8, 2026
S.Mishra
Digitally signed by :-
SHASHI MISHRA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…