Satendra Kumar vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Satendra Kumar vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned court below should be directed to take/permit common securities (sureties) for the applicant across his two pending bail cases (Crime Nos. 221/2024 and 197/2024, PS Jansath) instead of separate sureties. +1 more

Court's answer

Notwithstanding dismissal, the learned trial court/concerned court is directed to consider the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 29.10.2018 in Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky Vs. State of U.P. (SLP(C) Nos. 8914-8915 of 2018) in case the applicant prefers a bail bond.

Ratio / Principle

No prejudice has been caused to the applicant: he never intended to prefer bail bonds under the first bail order dated 10.02.2025 or under the subsequently extended bail orders, and as such there is hardly any denial available in record with regard to common surety.

Key takeaways

Consequently, no cause of action arises in favour of the applicant to pursue the instant application.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Court No. 77), Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:145415, order dated 22.8.2025 (Saurabh Srivastava, J.). Application under Section 528 BNSS by Satendra Kumar — implicated in Case Crime No. 221/2024 (Sections 303(2), 317(2) BNS and Section 3/35 Arms Act) and Case Crime No. 197/2024 (Section 305(B) BNS), PS Jansath, District Muzaffarnagar, and already enlarged on bail in both — prayed for a direction that the trial court accept common securities across both cases. On the Court's query, counsel conceded the applicant had never filed any bail bond and that there was no specific denial by the trial court. The Court held that no prejudice was caused, that there was hardly any denial regarding common surety in the record, and hence no cause of action arose; the application was dismissed at this stage. The trial court/concerned court was nonetheless directed to consider the Apex Court judgment dated 29.10.2018 in Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky Vs. State of U.P., SLP(C) Nos. 8914-8915 of 2018, should the applicant prefer a bail bond.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:145415

Court No. - 77

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 15026 of 2025

Applicant :- Satendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Kumar Tiwari,Sanjay Kr. 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 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.

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.

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 10.02.2025 passed by learned

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.

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.

Order Date :- 22.8.2025 #Vik/-

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