Allahabad High Court
AJEEMversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The application under Section 528 is not maintainable as no cause of action exists; the applicant must file a fresh application before the concerned court.
Summary
The applicant filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking a direction that all criminal cases in which he had been granted bail should be secured by a single personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two common sureties. The court queried whether the applicant had previously offered such a bond and whether any trial court had specifically denied it; the applicant admitted he had never offered any bail bond and there was no denial by the trial courts. The High Court held that no prejudice was caused to the applicant as he never intended to furnish a bail bond, and consequently, no cause of action existed to entertain the application. The court directed the applicant to file a fresh application before the concerned trial court within 15 days, to be decided within the next 15 days, in line with Supreme Court precedents. The instant application was therefore disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant can be directed to submit a common personal bond with two sureties for all cases where bail has been granted.
- Whether any trial court has specifically denied the applicant the permission to furnish such a bond.
- Whether the application under Section 528 CrPC is maintainable in the absence of a prior bail bond offer.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
Subjects
- bail
- personal bond
- surety
- Section 528 CrPC
- application
- cause of action
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 37599 of 2026
Ajeem
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Subham Singh
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 a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties
of same amount in all the criminal cases as mentioned in the prayer clause
of the instant application wherein 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 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
bail bonds and as such, there is hardly any denial available in record with
regard to a personal bond with two common sureties of same amount.
Hence, no cause of action arises in favour of applicant to pursue the
NA528 No. 37599 of 2026
2
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 9, 2026
Vivek Kr.
Digitally signed by :-
VIVEK KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…