Lukman v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC5 Jun 2025NA528/542/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single set of sureties accepted for accused bailed in multiple cases; trial court directed not to demand separate surety bond per FIR; personal bond plus two sureties held good across cases; reliance on Supreme Court order in Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky v. State of U.P. (SLP 8914-8915/2018); application under S. 528 BNSS (refereed also as S. 482 Cr.P.C.); BNS 2023 charges (109(1), 309(4), 317(2)) and Arms Act 3/25; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; decision dated 5.6.2025.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the learned trial court not to insist upon separate sureties for each of the two bail cases; the trial court to accept a single personal bond of the petitioner and two sureties, treat them as holding good across the cases, and thereafter order his release. ¶¶15

Lukman Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned trial court/Magistrate should be directed not to insist upon the petitioner filing separate surety bonds in each of the two pending cases, and instead to accept one personal bond and a common set of sureties holding good for release on bail in all such cases.

¶¶8

Court's answer

The petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned trial court not to insist upon separate sureties for each of the two cases in which the petitioner has been bailed out.

¶¶15

Ratio / Principle

The learned trial court shall accept a personal bond of the petitioner and two sureties to its satisfaction, pass appropriate order holding the said surety as good for the four cases (as worded in the judgment), and thereafter pass appropriate order for release of the petitioner.

¶¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Jaspreet Singh, J.) — Application under S. 528 BNSS No. 542 of 2025, disposed on 5.6.2025. An accused (Lukman), granted bail in two criminal cases — Case Crime No. 85/2025 (Ss. 109(1) BNS 2023; S. 3/25 Arms Act, PS P.G.I. Lucknow, bail order dt. 24.03.2025 by Incharge District Judge) and Case Crime No. 65/2025 (Ss. 309(4), 317(2) BNS 2023, PS PGI District Lucknow, bail order dt. 21.03.2025 by District & Sessions Judge) — pleaded financial inability to arrange separate sureties for each case, having managed only two sureties. Following the Supreme Court's order in Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky v. State of U.P. (SLP Nos. 8914-8915 of 2018, dt. 29.10.2018, where a single personal bond and two individual surety bonds executed in one case were held good across six cases), the Court directed the trial court not to insist upon separate sureties for each of the two cases, to accept one personal bond of the petitioner and two sureties, hold them good across the cases, and thereafter release the petitioner.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:34640

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 542 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Lukman Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Mansoor,Manoj Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State.

¶8

This petition has been filed praying for direction to be issued to the learned trial Court/Learned Magistrate not to insist upon the petitioner to file separate surety bonds in each of the two cases pending against him and to accept only one surety as holding good for release on bail of the petitioner.

¶9

It has been submitted by the petitioner that he has been made the accused in two criminal cases, the details of which have been given in paragraph 4 of the petition is being quoted herein below:

¶10

"1. Case Crime No.85/2025; Under Sections 109(1) BNS, 2023 and Section 3/25 Arms Act Police Station P.G.I Lucknow in which, the petitioner has been granted bail by learned Incharge of District Judge Lucknow by means of its order dated 24.03.2025.

¶11

Case Crime No.65/2025; Under Sections 309(4), 317(2), BNS 2023 Police Station PGI District Lucknow, in which, the petitioner has been granted bail by learned District & Sessions Judge, Lucknow by means of its order dated 21.03.2025."

¶12

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is financially very poor and is not in a condition to arrange sureties and persona bound. He has been able to manage only two sureties.

¶13

In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon an order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 8914-8915 of 2018: Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky v. State of U.P., wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, looking into the difficulty

¶14

faced by the petitioner in arranging two sureties each in all the six cases where bail orders had been passed, had directed that the petitioner may be released by executing a personal bond and the same bond shall hold good for all six cases in which he was accused, also there shall be two sureties who would execute individual bonds in one case which bonds shall hold good for all six cases.

¶15

In view of the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky (supra) on 29.10.2018, this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of with a direction to the learned trial court not to insist upon separate sureties for each of the two cases in which the petitioner has been bailed out. Learned trial court shall accept a personal bond of the petitioner and two sureties to the satisfaction of the learned trial court and pass appropriate order holding the said surety as good for the four cases and pass appropriate order, thereafter, for release of the petitioner.

¶16

Order Date :- 5.6.2025 Harshita

¶17

Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Lukman v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lukman v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

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

Baba Sukhdev B.S. Memorial Pvt. Industrial Training Institute Thru. Secy. Dileep Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Vocational Education and Skill Dev. U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Chhotanne Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and 3 Others

Om Prakash Pandey and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 2 Others

Ramesh Chandra Agarwal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Savita Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Mohd. Mustafa Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Finance Lko. and 3 Others