Yatendra Chaudhary v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 Jul 2025NA528/25443/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Common surety; single personal bond for multiple FIRs; relaxation of onerous bail condition requiring separate sureties for each case; Section 482 Cr.P.C. / Section 528 BNSS; Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky v. State of U.P., SLP (Crl.) No. 8915 of 2018 followed; 11 pending cases including mother FIR Case Crime No. 178 of 2019 (Ss. 420, 467, 468, 120B IPC), P.S. Sector 58, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar; applicant Yatendra Chaudhary; State of U.P.; Allahabad High Court; decided 28.07.2025.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the trial court to accept one common surety for all 11 cases; the applicant's personal bond and the two sureties' bond executed in one case declared to hold good for all 11 cases; application disposed of finally. ¶¶19

Yatendra Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether two sureties and one personal bond furnished to the satisfaction of the court concerned in one case (the mother FIR, Case Crime No. 178 of 2019) may be accepted as common surety and bond for the other 10 criminal cases registered against the applicant for the purpose of releasing him on bail.

¶¶7

Court's answer

In view of the Supreme Court judgment in Hani Nishad (supra), the trial court is directed to accept one common surety for all the 11 cases against the applicant.

¶¶17

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order stands modified: the applicant shall execute one personal bond and two sureties shall execute their bond in one case, and both the personal bond and the sureties' bond shall hold good for all the 11 cases.

¶¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Vikram D. Chauhan, J.; order dated 28.7.2025) disposed of an application captioned under S.528 BNSS (pleaded in the body as under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) filed by Yatendra Chaudhary, who had been enlarged on bail in 11 criminal cases (case crime nos. 627, 349, 635, 178, 365, 629 and 347 of 2019 and 04, 06, 7 and 3 of 2020) but could not furnish separate sureties for each bail order. Relying on and following the Supreme Court's order in Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky v. State of U.P., SLP (Crl.) No. 8915 of 2018 (decided 29.10.2018), where a single personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- and two sureties were made to hold good for 31 cases, the Court directed the trial court to accept one common surety for all the 11 cases and modified the impugned order to the extent that the applicant's personal bond and the bond of two sureties, furnished in one case (the mother FIR, i.e. Case Crime No. 178 of 2019, Ss. 420, 467, 468, 120B IPC, P.S. Sector 58, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar), shall hold good for all the 11 cases. Application disposed of finally.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:125279

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 25443 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Yatendra Chaudhary Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nisheeth Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶6

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the following prayer:-

¶7

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the learned concerned court and the applicant may be allowed to submit two sureties and one personal bond to the satisfaction of the court concerned in one case (e.g. the mother FIR i.e. Case Crime No.178 of 2019, U/s 420 467, 468, 120B of I.P.C., Police Station Sector 58, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar) and the same shall be considered by the concerned court as surety and bond in other 10 cases (as so mentioned in Paragraph No.14 & 20 of this affidavit) registered against the applicant for the purpose of releasing the applicant on bail, otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury."

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been enlarged on bail in the above mentioned 11 cases, however the applicant is not in a position to produce the separate sureties for each bail order. He submits that common sureties be accepted. He has placed reliance over the judgment of Hon'ble The Apex Court passed in the case of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky Vs. The State of UP, in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.8915 of 2018 passed on 29.10.2018. The operative portion of the order of Hon'ble the Apex Court is quoted herein below:

¶9

"However, by the impugned order, the High Court has modified the conditions of bail imposed by the Trial Court in the instant cases by directing the Trial Court to accept one common surety for all the cases and one surety each for the 31 cases.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the Court has granted bail to the petitioner, the petitioner is unable to execute the bail bonds because of the onerous conditions of bail imposed particularly the condition of producing 31 sureties.

¶11

Considering the submissions, the impugned order is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees

¶12

Thirty thousand only) and the same bond shall hold good for all 31 cases. There shall be two sureties who shall execute the bond for Rs. 30,000/- which bond shall hold good for all the 31 cases. It is clarified that the personal bond so executed by the Petitioner and the bond so executed by the two sureties shall hold good for all the 31 cases.

¶13

With these observations, the Special Leave Petitions are disposed of.

¶14

Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of."

¶15

The details of the 11 cases shown in paragraph nos.14 and 20 are as follows:-

¶16

Case Crime No.627 of 2019, 2. Case Crime No.349 of 2019, 3. Case Crime No.635 of 2019, 4. Case Crime No.178 of 2019, 5.Case Crime No.365 of 2019, 6. Case Crime No.629 of 2019, 7. Case Crime No.04 of 2020, 8. Case Crime No.347 of 2019, 9. Case Crime No.06 of 2020, 10. Case Crime No.7 of 2020 and 11. Case Crime No.3 of 2020.

¶17

In view of the aforesaid judgment passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court, the trial court is directed to accept one common surety for all the 11 cases.

¶18

In view of the above, the impugned order is modified to the extent that the applicant shall execute a personal bond and the same bond shall hold good for all 11 cases. There shall be two sureties who shall execute the bond and shall hold good for all the 11 cases. It is clarified that the personal bond so executed by the applicant and the bond so executed by the two sureties shall hold good for all the 11 cases.

¶19

With the above directions, this application is disposed of finally

¶20

Order Date :- 28.7.2025 Bhaskar

¶21

Digitally signed by :- BHASKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Yatendra Chaudhary v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yatendra Chaudhary 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