Sabir Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sabir Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Surety condition relaxed: applicant to furnish a personal bond plus two heavy sureties (one a family member of the applicant) in the like amount in any one of his three bailed-out cases (CC 470/2023, 471/2023, 140/2024, PS Pali, Hardoi); the said sureties to be valid for all three cases.

Issue for consideration

Whether the bail-surety condition in the applicant's three bailed-out cases can be relaxed so that a personal bond with two sureties furnished in any one case is treated adequate/valid for all three cases.

Court's answer

The Court directed that the applicant shall furnish a personal bond and two heavy sureties (one surety being a family member of the applicant), each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, in any one case.

Ratio / Principle

The sureties so furnished in the one case shall be valid for all the above-mentioned three cases in which bail orders have already been passed.

Key takeaways

Counsel's explanation that 'only one surety' in the prayer clause was a typing mistake (meant to be one set of two sureties) was accepted by the Court.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (LUCKNOW BENCH), Court No. 29 - Application U/S 482 No. 10566 of 2025 (Sabir v. State of U.P.), decided 15.12.2025 by Divesh Chandra Samant, J. The applicant, already granted bail in three cases (CC 470/2023 - Ss. 279, 364-A, 120-B IPC; CC 471/2023 - S. 307 IPC & S. 27(2) Arms Act; CC 140/2024 - S. 2/3 Gangster Act; PS Pali, District Hardoi), was unable to furnish the approx. six sureties needed for the bail bonds. Citing the Apex Court order of 29.10.2018 in Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky v. State of U.P. (permitting personal bond and two sureties to hold good in all cases) and similar co-ordinate-bench orders (WP (MS) No. 30481 of 2018, Imran v. State of U.P., 16.11.2018), the Court relaxed the condition: the applicant to furnish a personal bond and two heavy sureties (one a family member) in any one case, and those sureties to be valid for all three cases. Application finally disposed of.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10566 of 2025

Sabir

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

.....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mangal Sen Yadav, Deepansi, Sonal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 29

HON'BLE DIVESH CHANDRA SAMANT, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.

Learned counsel for the applicant prays that due to typing mistake in the prayer clause the word "only one surety" has been typed and prayed to consider only one set of two surety. Accordingly, the prayer is accepted.

By means this application, the applicant has prayed to relax the condition of bail to the extent that the applicant be allowed to file two sureties in any case and the same shall be treated adequate in all three cases in which he has already been bailed out. The detail of that cases are given below:-

a. Case Crime No.470 of 2023, under Sections 279, 364-A, 120-B IPC, Police Station Pali, District Hardoi.

b. Case Crime No.471 of 2023, under Sections 307 IPC & 27(2) Arms Act, Police Station Pali, District Hardoi.

c. Case Crime No.140 of 2024, under Section 2/3 Gangster Act, Police Station Pali, District Hardoi.

It is stated by learned counsel for the applicant that against the applicant there are three cases in which he has already been granted bail, but because of non-availability of about 06 sureties, he is unable to file bail bonds, therefore, in this regard a prayer has been made that the applicant may be permitted to file two sureties in all the cases. It is also stated that in similarly

A482 No. 10566 of 2025

2

situated matters, this Court has granted relief.

It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in similar circumstances, namely, in the case of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh [SLP (Crl.) No. 89148915/2018) , the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 29.10.2018 has permitted the applicant to submit personal bonds and two sureties of heavy amount to hold good in all the cases. Similarly, orders have been passed by a co-ordinate bench of this Court as well and one of such orders in Writ Petition (MS) No. 30481 of 2018 (Imran Vs. State of U.P.) decided on 16.11.2018, has also been filed.

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.

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

December 15, 2025 I.A. Siddiqui

Divesh Chandra Samant,J.)

Digitally signed by :- IMRAN AHMAD SIDDIQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench