Anil Rathore Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Anil Rathore Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief in terms of the prayer (no direction issued to the trial court to accept common two sureties and personal bond); the applicant is directed to prefer bail bond and submit the same prayer before the learned court concerned in light of the Apex Court judgement in Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky Vs. State of U.P.

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial court should be directed to accept the two sureties and personal bond of the applicant across all four cases (case crime nos. 327, 301, 206 and 291 of 2024) in which he has already been enlarged on bail. +1 more

Court's answer

No prejudice has been caused to the applicant: he never intended to prefer bail bonds in pursuance of the first bail order dated 04.02.2025, and although he was extended bail in consecutive four cases up to 04.03.2025, at no point of time did he intend to prefer bail bonds; accordingly the requested direction to accept common two sureties and personal bond across the four cases was not granted.

Ratio / Principle

Since there is hardly any denial available in the record with regard to two sureties in each and every bail bond, no cause of action arises in favour of the applicant to pursue the instant application.

Key takeaways

It is made clear that the applicant is hereby directed to prefer bail bond and submit the same prayer before the learned court concerned in light of the judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky Vs. State of U.P. (SLP (Crl.) Nos. 8914-8915 of 2018, decided on 29.10.2018).ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Saurabh Srivastava, J.), Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 12341 of 2025, Anil Rathore v. State of U.P., Order Date 15.4.2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:55113): The applicant, already enlarged on bail in four criminal cases (case crime nos. 327, 301, 206 and 291 of 2024 at PS Fatehabad, Iradatnagar and Shamshabad, District Agra, involving offences under Sections 109(1), 303(2), 317(2), 331(4), 305 and 112 BNS and Sections 3/25 Arms Act), sought a direction to the trial court to accept two sureties and a personal bond common to all four cases. On a precise query, his counsel admitted that the applicant never preferred any bail bond in any of the four cases and that there was no specific denial from the trial court. The Court held that no prejudice was caused to the applicant, who despite bail orders from 04.02.2025 to 04.03.2025 never intended to prefer bail bonds, and that there was hardly any denial in the record regarding two sureties in each bail bond; hence no cause of action arose. The application was disposed of with a direction to the applicant to prefer bail bond and submit the same prayer before the learned court concerned in light of the Supreme Court judgement in Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky Vs. State of U.P., SLP (Crl.) Nos. 8914-8915 of 2018 (decided 29.10.2018).

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:55113

Court No. - 74

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 12341 of 2025

Applicant :- Anil Rathore Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Srivastav,Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Present application has been preferred with prayer to direct the trial court to accept the two sureties and personal bond in all the four cases, first case is case crime no.327 of 2024, under Section 109(1) BNS and Sections 3/25 Arms Act, PS- Fatehabad, DistrictAgra; second case is case crime no.301 of 2024, under Sections 303(2), 317(2) BNS, PS- Fatehabad, District- Agra; third case is Case Crime no.206 of 2024, u/s 331(4), 305, 112 BNS, PSIradatnagar, District- Agra; fourth case is case crime no.291 of 2024, under sections 303(2) BNS, PS- Shamshabad, District- Agra.

At the very outset, learned counsel for applicant sought the direction of this Court in shape of instructing the trial court to permit two sureties for all four cases wherein, applicant has already been enlarged on bail.

Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant application.

During the course of argument a precise query has been raised before learned counsel for applicant that whether applicant has ever preferred the bail bond in pursuance to the aforesaid cases wherein he has been enlarged on bail and if so, whether there is a specific denial from learned trial court in shape of asking separate sureties for separate cases. In response to the query, learned counsel for applicant fairly submitted that applicant never preferred any bail bond in pursuance to any of aforesaid cases in which he has been enlarged on bail and there is no specific denial from learned trial court concerned.

In view of aforementioned discussions and after perusing the

records, this Court finds that no prejudice has been caused to the applicant as applicant never intended to prefer bail bonds in pursuance to first bail order dated 04.02.2025 passed by learned court concerned although thereafter till 04.03.2025 applicant has already been extended bail in consecutive four cases, but at no point of time he intended to prefer bail bonds and as such there is hardly any denial available in record with regard to two surety in each and ever bail bond. Hence, no cause of action arises in favour of applicant to pursue the instant application.

However, it is made clear that applicant is hereby directed to prefer bail bond and submit the same prayer before learned court concerned in light of judgement rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky Vs. State of U.P., decided on 29.10.2018 in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 8914-8915 of 2018.

With the aforesaid observation, instant application stands disposed of.

Order Date :- 15.4.2025 Saif

Digitally signed by :- SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad