Dismissed¶13

Pintu Paswan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2025NA528/14967/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Common sureties; bail bond; S. 528 BNSS application; Pintu Paswan; State of U.P.; Allahabad High Court; Saurabh Srivastava J.; 22.8.2025; Case Crime 221/2024 (303(2), 317(2) BNS; Arms Act 3/35); Case Crime 197/2024 (305(B) BNS); PS Jansath, Muzaffarnagar; bail orders incl. 10.02.2025; dismissal for want of cause of action; directive to consider Apex Court judgment dt. 29.10.2018, Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky v. State of U.P., SLP(C) 8914-8915 of 2018.

What did the court decide?

None to the applicant — the application is dismissed at this stage; the trial court is only directed to consider the Apex Court judgment dated 29.10.2018 (Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky v. State of U.P., SLP(C) 8914-8915 of 2018) if the applicant prefers a bail bond. ¶13

Pintu Paswan vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court should direct/instruct the trial court to permit common sureties (common bail bonds) for the two cases in which the applicant has already been enlarged on bail, instead of separate sureties for each case.

¶8

Court's answer

No prejudice has been caused to the applicant because he never preferred (nor intended to prefer) any bail bond in pursuance of the bail orders in the two cases, including the first bail order dated 10.02.2025; consequently there is hardly any denial of common sureties available on record and no cause of action arises in favour of the applicant to pursue the instant application.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The instant application stands dismissed at this stage; however, the learned trial court/concerned court is directed to consider the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 29.10.2018 in Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky v. State of U.P. (Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) Nos. 8914-8915 of 2018) in case the applicant prefers a bail bond.

¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Saurabh Srivastava, J.; Order Date 22.8.2025) — Application u/s 528 BNSS No. 14967 of 2025 by Pintu Paswan praying for a direction to the trial court to accept common sureties across two criminal cases in which he had already been enlarged on bail (Case Crime No. 221/2024 — Sections 303(2), 317(2) BNS and Section 3/35 Arms Act; Case Crime No. 197/2024 — Section 305(B) BNS; both PS-Jansath, Distt. Muzaffarnagar). On enquiry, counsel conceded the applicant had never furnished any bail bond in pursuance of either bail order (first bail order dated 10.02.2025) and the trial court had made no specific denial of common sureties. Finding no prejudice and no denial on record, the Court held no cause of action arose and DISMISSED the application at this stage, while directing the trial court to consider the Apex Court judgment dated 29.10.2018 in Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky v. State of U.P. (SLP(C) 8914-8915 of 2018) should the applicant hereafter prefer a bail bond.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:145416

¶2

Court No. - 77

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 14967 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Pintu Paswan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Kumar Tiwari,Sanjay Kr. Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶7

Present application has been preferred with prayer to direct the learned court below to take common securities of the applicant who has been implicated in two cases : I. Case Crime no. 221/2024 under sections 303(2), 317(2) BNS and Section 3/35 of Arms Act and II. Case Crime no. 197/2024 under section305(B) BNS, both at PS-Jansath, District Muzaffarnagar.

¶8

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

¶9

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

¶10

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.

¶11

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 10.02.2025 passed by learned

¶12

court below, although thereafter applicant has already been extended bail in consecutive 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 common surety in each and ever bail bond. Hence, no cause of action arises in favour of applicant to pursue the instant application.

¶13

The instant application stands dismissed at this stage accordingly. However, learned trial court/concerned court is directed to consider, judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court on dated 29.10.2018 in case of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky Vs. State of U.P. in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) Nos. 8914-8915 of 2018 , in case applicant prefers bail bond.

¶14

Order Date :- 22.8.2025 #Vik/-

¶15

Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pintu Paswan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pintu Paswan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Kashish and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Hina Parvin and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Shruti Kasyap and Another vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

Bhupendra Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Satendra Kumar vs State of U.P.

X Minor vs State of U.P. and Another