Saleem @ Chona Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Saleem @ Chona Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial court should be directed to accept common securities/common sureties for the applicant across the five criminal cases in which he has already been enlarged on bail.

Court's answer

No prejudice has been caused to the applicant because he never intended to prefer bail bonds in any of the five cases in which he was enlarged on bail (first bail order dated 06.08.2024, bail extended till 1.5.2025); consequently, no cause of action arises in favour of the applicant to pursue the instant application.

Ratio / Principle

While dismissing the application, the Court made it clear that the applicant is directed to prefer his bail bond and submit the same prayer before the learned court concerned in light of the Apex Court judgment in Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky v. State of U.P.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Saurabh Srivastava, J.; Order Date 13.8.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:141688) dismissed an application under Section 528 BNSS (Application No. 19232 of 2025) by Saleem @ Chona, who prayed for a direction to the trial court to take common securities across five criminal cases (Case Crime Nos. 61, 66, 67, 37 and 111 of 2024) in each of which he had already been enlarged on bail. On the Court's query, counsel for the applicant conceded that the applicant had never preferred any bail bond in any of those cases and that the trial court had made no specific denial of common sureties. Holding that between the first bail order dated 06.08.2024 and 1.5.2025 the applicant obtained bail in five consecutive cases without ever intending to file bail bonds, the Court found no prejudice caused and no cause of action for the application. The application was dismissed, with a direction that the applicant prefer his bail bond and submit the same prayer before the learned court concerned in light of the Apex Court judgment in Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky v. State of U.P., Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 8914-8915 of 2018, decided on 29.10.2018.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:141688

Court No. - 77

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 19232 of 2025

Applicant :- Saleem @ Chona 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 5 cases.

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 five cases bearing Case Crime nos. 61 of 2024, 66 of 2024, 67 of 2024, 37 of 2024 and 111 of 2024 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 06.08.2024 passed by learned court concerned, although thereafter till 1.5.2025 applicant has already been extended bail in consecutive 5 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.

NA528 No. 19232 of 2025

2

The instant application stands dismissed accordingly. 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.

Order Date :- 13.8.2025 Shaswat

Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad