Disposed

Bahare Alam v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC9 Dec 2025/10180/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant granted bail in eleven criminal cases but unable to furnish twenty-two sureties sought a direction that the same sureties be accepted in all cases. The High Court held no bar exists to standing surety in multiple cases under Section 486 BNSS and left acceptance to the trial court's discretion.

What did the court decide?

Direction that the court below may, in its discretion, accept the same verified sureties in all eleven cases.

Bahare Alam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10180 of 2025

Bahare Alam

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Tribhuvan Narai Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 14

¶9

HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

¶11

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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 eleven cases.

¶12

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

¶13

(i) Case Crime No. 200 of 2014, under Section 8/22 NDPS Act, P.S. Hyderabad, District Lakhimpur Kheri

¶14

(ii) Case Crime No. 97 of 2018, under Section 8/20 NDPS Act, P.S. Hyderabad, District Lakhimpur Kheri

¶15

(iii) Case Crime No. 286 of 2022, under Section 307 I.P.C., P.S. Hyderabad, District Lakhimpur Kheri

¶16

(iv) Case Crime No. 287 of 2022, under Section 3/25 Act, P.S. Hyderabad, District Lakhimpur Kheri

¶17

(v) Case Crime No. 521 of 2024, under Sections 305(a), 331(4), 317(2), 317(4), 317(5) BNS, P.S. Gola, District Lakhimpur Kheri

¶18

A482 No. 10180 of 2025

¶19

¶20

(vi) Case Crime No. 163 of 2025, under Sections 305(a), 331(4), 317(2), 317(4) BNS, P.S. Gola, District Lakhimpur Kheri

¶21

(vii) Case Crime No. 113 of 2025, under Sections 305(a), 331(4), 317(2), 317(4) BNS, P.S. Gola, District Lakhimpur Kheri

¶22

(viii) Case Crime No. 162 of 2025, under Sections 305(a), 331(4), 317(2), 317(4) BNS, P.S. Gola, District Lakhimpur Kheri

¶23

(ix) Case Crime No. 166 of 2025, under Sections 305(a), 331(4), 317(2), 317(4) BNS, P.S. Gola, District Lakhimpur Kheri

¶24

(x) Case Crime No. 58 of 2025, under Sections 305(a), 331(4), 317(2), 317(4) BNS, P.S. Gola, District Lakhimpur Kheri

¶25

(xi) Case Crime No. 168 of 2025, under Section 3/25 Arms Act, P.S. Gola, District Lakhimpur Kheri

¶26

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 twenty two sureties in eleven different cases is almost impracticable as the applicant is very poor person and he will not be able to arrange 22 sureties to get bail.

¶27

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] .

¶28

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.

¶29

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 eleven cases and a suitable direction in this regard be given to the court below.

¶30

The acceptance of the sureties and their verification is the prerogative of the

¶31

A482 No. 10180 of 2025

¶32

¶33

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 eleven cases, is concerned, the answer to this apprehension and grievance is implicit in Section 486 BNSS, which is reproduced as under:-

¶34

"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."

¶35

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, 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.

¶36

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.

¶37

With the aforesaid observations, the application is finally disposed of.

¶38

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

¶39

December 9, 2025 VKS

¶40

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Bahare Alam v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bahare Alam v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Arun Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Dharmendra Kumar ( in Fir Dharmendra Kumar Pandey ) and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Suman Dwivedi and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Smt. Sneh Lata vs U.P. State Warehousing Corporation Lko. Thru. Managing Director and Another

Mohd Irfan @ Wahajuddin and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Bablu Saini Thru. Wife Shabrun Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.