Disposed¶25

Rammurti v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P.

Allahabad HC14 May 2026NA528/1921/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 528 BNSS application; single personal bond and two sureties valid across six bail cases; separate sureties not required; Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky v. State of U.P., SLP (Crl.) No.8914-8915/2018, SC order dated 29.10.2018; Case Crime Nos. 622/2025, 558/2025, 92/2026, 65/2026, 52/2026, 43/2026; Sections 305(a), 317(2), 331(4) B.N.S.; P.S. Kotwali Dehat and Kotwali Shahar, District Hardoi; personal bond Rs.50,000/-; poor accused unable to furnish sureties; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Shree Prakash Singh, J.; decided May 14, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the trial court to accept one personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount furnished in one case as valid for all six cases in which bail orders have been passed. ¶25

Rammurti vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P. — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 1921 of 2026

Rammurti

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P.

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Vishal Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 16

¶10

HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

¶11

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

¶12

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 six cases and accept only two sureties and one personal bond in lieu of all six cases.

¶13

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 six cases arising out of following Case Crime Numbers :-

¶14

(i) Case crime no. 622/2025 under section 305(a), 317(2), 331(4) of the B.N.S. registered at Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, District- Hardoi.

¶15

(ii) Case crime no. 558/2025 under section 305(a), 331(4), 317(2) of the B.N.S. registered at Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, District- Hardoi.

¶16

iii) Case crime no. 92/2026 under section 305(a), 331(4), 317(2) of the B.N.S., 2023 registered at Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, District- Hardoi.

¶17

(iv) Case crime no. 65/2026 under section 305(a), 331(4), 317(2) of the B.N.S. registered at Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, District- Hardoi.

¶18

(v) Case crime no. 52/2026 under section 305(a), 317(2) of the B.N.S.

¶19

NA528 No. 1921 of 2026

¶20

¶21

registered at Police Station-Kotwali Shahar, District- Hardoi.

¶22

(vi) Case crime no. 43/2026 under section 305(a), 317(2) of the B.N.S. registered at Police Station-Kotwali Shahar, District- Hardoi.

¶23

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 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.

¶24

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).

¶25

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.

¶26

May 14, 2026

¶27

Mayank

¶28

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶29

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

Rammurti v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rammurti v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 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

Similar cases

Dhanpal Rathore and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Hardik Trivedi and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Ram Mangal Rastogi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Smt. Rahimun Nisha vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 5 Others

Ajay @ Ajay Kumar and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Amit Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another