Allahabad High Court
NA528/2197/2025 of MOHD. ADIL Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME GOVT. LKO. on 19 December 2025
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 2197 of 2025 Court No. - 14 HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record. 2. This application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to direct
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 2197 of 2025
Court No. - 14
HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.
2. This application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to direct the trial Court to allow the applicant to submit only a personal bond and two sureties in lieu of all the cases.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in three cases, details of which are as under:
(i) . Case Crime No.239 of 2024, under Sections 303 (2), 317(2), 317(4) BNS., Police Station Sahadatganj, District Lucknow.
(ii) . Case Crime No.279 of 2024, under Sections 303 (2), 317(2) BNS., Police Station Bazarkhala, District Lucknow.
(iii) . Case Crime No.215 of 2024, under Sections 303 (2), 317(2) BNS., Police Station BBD., District Lucknow.
4. It has been submitted that the applicant has been granted bail by the trial court as well as by this Court in all the aforesaid cases, but furnishing of six sureties in all above cases is almost impracticable as the applicant is very poor person and he will not be able to arrange six sureties to get bail. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sudhaker Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mohd. Adil .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko. .....Opposite Party(s)
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh [SLP (Crl.) No.8914-8915/2018].
6. Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that it is always the discretion and satisfaction of the trial court, so far as the acceptance of the sureties is concerned.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the rival parties, it appears that the only grievance of the applicant appears to be that, despite having obtained the order of the bail in all the cases, he is not able to come out of the prison for the reason that he is unable to find separate sureties for each case and, thus, a prayer has been made that, applicant be permitted to file same sureties in all the three cases and a suitable direction in this regard be given to the trial court.
8. The acceptance of the sureties and their verification is the prerogative of the trial court and the same, in any case, could not be controlled by this Court. Sufficient guidelines in this regard have already been given by the High Court on administrative side to the subordinate courts. However, as far as the grievance of the applicant, pertaining to the fact that he is not in a position to arrange separate sureties for all above mentioned cases, is concerned, the answer to this apprehension and grievance is implicit in Section 441-A of Code of Criminal Procedure/Section 486 of B.N.S.S., which is reproduced as under:- "Declaration by sureties- Every person standing surety to an accused person for his release on bail, shall make a declaration before the Court as to the number of persons to whom he has stood surety including the accused, giving therein all the relevant particulars."
9. Perusal of this Section shows that, a person, who is intending to be the surety of any accused person, is obliged to declare before the Court that apart from the person, to whom he is standing surety, for how many other accused persons, he has stood surety. Therefore, NA528 No. 2197 of 2025
the texture of the Section 441-A of the Cr.P.C./Section 486 of B.N.S.S., which clearly reflects that a person may stand surety for more than one accused person and in more than one case. So there appears no bar for a person to stand surety in more than one case and also for more than one accused person.
10. However, as stated earlier, the status, verification and the competency of the surety will always be assessed by the trial court before acceptance.
11. Thus, it is directed that, if same sureties are placed before the trial court and they are otherwise competent and their status and other particulars have been duly verified, the trial court, in its discretion, may accept the same in all the cases mentioned hereinbefore.
12. With the aforesaid observations, the application is disposed of. December 19, 2025 Pks NA528 No. 2197 of 2025
(Rajeev Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- POOJA SETH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench