Disposed¶18

Gufran @ Mohd. Gufran v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC7 May 2026NA528/1812/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 528 BNSS application; clubbing of personal bond and sureties across multiple criminal cases; bail condition relief; Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky, SLP (Crl.) No. 8914-8915/2018 (SC order 29.10.2018); BNS Sections 127(2), 115(2), 351(2), 140(2), 303(2), 61(2); U.P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities(Prevention) Act, 1986 Sections 2(kha)1, 2(kh)xi, 2(kha) xiv, 3(1); PS Madiyaon, District Lucknow; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; single bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties valid in all cases; indigent accused unable to furnish separate sureties.

What did the court decide?

Single personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to be furnished in one case and accepted as valid in all other cases in which bail orders were passed. ¶18

Gufran @ Mohd. Gufran vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 1812 of 2026

¶3

Gufran @ Mohd. Gufran

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pradyumn Shukla, Qasim Abbas Zaidi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 16

¶7

HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶9

By means of the instant application, the applicant has prayed that this Court may be pleased to direct the learned trial court not to insist the petitioner to file separate sureties and bonds in each and every two cases and accept only two sureties and one personal bond in lieu of all two cases.

¶10

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that it has become impossible for the applicant to submit separate sureties and bonds in each of cases, in which, he has been granted bail. He added that the applicant has been granted bail in two cases arising out of following Case Crime Numbers :-

¶11

Case Crime No. 522 of 2025, under Sections 127(2), 115(2), 351(2), 140(2), 303(2), 61(2) B.N.S. PS - Madiyaon District - Lucknow.

¶12

Case Crime No. 01 of 2026, under Sections 2(kha)1, 2(kh)xi, 2(kha) xiv, 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities(Prevention) Act, 1986, PS - Madiyaon District - Lucknow.

¶13

He next added that despite the Trial Court granted the bail in aforesaid matters, the applicant is still in jail. Being poor person, he is unable to produce the sureties in each cases. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that in similar circumstances, namely, in the case of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky vs. The State of Uttar

¶14

NA528 No. 1812 of 2026

¶15

¶16

Pradesh [SLP (Crl.) No.8914-8915/2018] the Supreme Court vide order dated 29.10.2018 has permitted the petitioner to submit separate personal bonds and two sureties of heavy amount to hold good in all the cases.

¶17

Referring the aforesaid judgement and order, he submits that the applicant may also be given the benefit of the ratio of the judgement passed in Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky (supra).

¶18

Considering the aforesaid fact, the petition is disposed off with a direction to the applicant to furnish a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of the like amount in one case, which shall be treated to be valid in all other cases wherein the bail orders have been passed.

¶19

May 7, 2026

¶20

Mayank

¶21

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶22

Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Gufran @ Mohd. Gufran v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gufran @ Mohd. Gufran v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Similar cases

Akhil @ Akhilesh Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. U.P. Lko.

Pramod Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Rajesh Kumar Maurya @ Rajesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Ramteerath vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Amar Pal Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Liyakat Shah alias Liyakat Ali and 12 others vs State of U.P. through Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home,Civil Secretariat and 2 others