NA528/2230/2025 of JOKHE @ CHOKHE Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. ITS ADDL. CHIEF SECY. HOME LKO. on 18 December 2025

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 to direct the learned court below not to insist the applicant to file separate surety bonds in each and every cases and accept only one surety in lieu of all the three cases.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in three cases, details of which are as under:

(i) F.I.R. No. 323 of 2025, under Sections 305(A), 317(2), 317(4) BNS, P.S. Rupaideeha, District Bahraich

(ii) F.I.R. No. 319 of 2025, under Sections 305(A), 331(4), 317(2), 317(4) BNS, P.S. Rupaideeha, District Bahraich

(iii) F.I.R. No. 324 of 2025, under Sections 109(1) BNS and Section 3/25 Arms Act, P.S. Rupaideeha, District Bahraich

4. It is submitted that the applicant has been granted bail by the court below as well as by this Court in all the cases, but furnishing of six sureties in three different cases is almost impracticable as Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shailendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Jokhe @ Chokhe .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s)

the applicant is very poor person and he will not be able to arrange 6 sureties to get bail.

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 Praesh [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 court below.

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 the three cases, is concerned, the answer to this apprehension and grievance is implicit in Section 486 BNSS, 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 NA528 No. 2230 of 2025

the Court that apart from the person, to whom he is standing surety, for how many other accused persons, he has stood surety. Therefore, the texture of the Section 486 BNSS 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. However, as stated earlier, the status, verification and the competency of the surety will always be assessed by the trial court before acceptance.

10. Thus, it is directed that, if same sureties are placed before the court below and they are otherwise competent and their status and other particulars have been duly verified, the court below, in its discretion, may accept the same in all the cases mentioned hereinbefore.

11. With the aforesaid observations, the application is finally disposed of. December 18, 2025 VKS NA528 No. 2230 of 2025

(Rajeev Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench