Disposed

Shoeb v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Sept 2025NA528/34638/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant enlarged on bail in three criminal cases sought release on one surety instead of separate sureties in each case, citing poverty. Relying on a Supreme Court order in Hani Nishad, the High Court directed that one surety and personal bond in one case be treated as sureties and bonds for all cases.

What did the court decide?

Applicant permitted to submit one surety and personal bond in one case, to be accepted for all other cases.

Shoeb Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 34638 of 2025

Shoeb

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Sushil Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 89

¶10

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶11

Heard Shri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri B.P. Maurya, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶12

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the concerned police in 3 cases. It has further been submitted that in all the cases bail application has been allowed by this Court/ court below but due to his poverty and financial crisis he is not able to manage separate sureties in all the cases. It has further been submitted that the applicant may be allowed to be released on bail only on one surety in regard to all the cases.

¶13

Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant has been enlarged on bail in the following cases:

¶14

1. Case Crime No.45 of 2025, U/s 303(2), 317(2) of BNS, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Muzaffar Nagar.

¶15

2. Case Crime No. 40 of 2024, U/s 109, 317(5) of BNS, P.S. Shahpur, District Muzaffar Nagar.

¶16

3. Case Crime No.37 of 2025, U/s 303(2), 317(2), 317(4) of BNS, P.S. Shahpur, District Muzaffar Nagar.

¶17

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed and submitted that all the offences against the applicant are pending in different courts and hence prayer of the applicant cannot be allowed.

¶18

NA528 No. 34638 of 2025

¶19

¶20

Keeping in view the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the factual argument and the judgment and order dated 29.10.2018 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh passed in Petition (s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 8914-8915/2018, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met in case applicant is directed to submit fresh one surety and a personal bond to the satisfaction of the Court concerned in one case and the same shall be considered by the Court concerned as sureties and bonds in other case(s) for the purpose of releasing the applicant on bail.

¶21

It is ordered accordingly.

¶22

With the aforesaid observations, the instant application U/s 528 BNSS is accordingly disposed of .

¶23

September 17, 2025 RKM

¶24

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶25

Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shoeb v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shoeb v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases