Disposed

Santosh Mandal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2025/2135/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant granted bail in six cases could not be released due to the requirement of two individual sureties in each case. Following an Apex Court precedent, the Court directed that a personal bond and two sureties furnished in any one case would hold good in all cases where bail was ordered.

What did the court decide?

Personal bond and two heavy sureties (one a family member) furnished in any one case to be valid across all six cases where bail was granted.

Santosh Mandal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 2135 of 2025

Santosh Mandal

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

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

¶7

			.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Shyamendra Singh	Singh,	Shiv Om, Tej
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 29

¶9

HON'BLE DIVESH CHANDRA SAMANT, J.

¶10

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

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is involved in as many as 6 cases and in all the cases, he has already been granted bail by this Court. It is further submitted that on account of requirement of two individual surety in each case, the applicant has not been released on bail. The details of the cases are as follows :-

¶12

(i) Case Crime No. 115 of 2025 under Sections 303(2), 317(2), 317(4), 3(5) B.N.S. & 66-C, 66-D of I.T. Act, Police StationBaba Bazar, District-Ayodhya.

¶13

(ii) Case Crime No. 176 of 2025 under Sections 303(2), 317(2) B.N.S. & 66-C, 66-D of I.T. Act, Police Station-Cantt., District-Ayodhya.

¶14

(iii) Case Crime No. 313 of 2025 under Sections 303(2), 317(2), 317(4), 318(4) B.N.S. & 66-C, 66-D of I.T. Act, Police Station-Inayatnagr, District-Ayodhya.

¶15

(iv) Case Crime No. 329 of 2025 under Sections 303(2), 317(2), 317(4), 318(2) B.N.S. & 66-C, 66-D of I.T. Act, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Ayodhya.

¶16

NA528 No. 2135 of 2025

¶17

¶18

(v) Case Crime No. 334 of 2025 under Sections 303(2), 317(2), 317(4), 318(2) B.N.S. & 66-C, 66-D of I.T. Act, Police StationKotwali, District-Ayodhya.

¶19

(vi) Case Crime No. 346 of 2025 under Sections 303(2), 317(2), 317(4), 318(2) B.N.S. & 66-C, 66-D of I.T. Act, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Ayodhya.

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the decision of Apex Court in the case of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vicky Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh in Special Leave to Appeal(Crl.) No. 8914-8915 of 2018 decided on 29.10.2018, in which, Hon'ble Apex Court has passed the order directing the petitioner to execute one personal bond and two sureties which shall hold good for all 31 cases.

¶21

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that the applicant shall furnish a personal bond and two heavy sureties (one surety should be of family member of the applicant) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in any one case. The said surety shall be valid in all above mentioned cases, where the bail order has been passed.

¶22

With the above observations, this application under Section 482 CrPC is finally disposed of .

¶23

(Divesh Chandra Samant,J.)

¶24

December 16, 2025 ADY

¶25

Digitally signed by :- AMAR DEEP YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Santosh Mandal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Mandal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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