Disposed¶¶29

Ramji v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 5 Others

Bail – common/personal bond across multiple cases

Allahabad HC15 May 2026NA528/1969/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Shree Prakash Singh, J., 15 May 2026 — Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 1969 of 2026, Ramji v. State of U.P.: single personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties accepted as valid across ten bail-granted cases (Hardoi FIRs under BNS, Arms Act and Gangsters Act) on the pattern of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky (SLP (Crl.) 8914-8915/2018); useful on common surety/multiple-bail hardship.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the learned Court below to accept a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of the like amount furnished in one case as valid in all the other cases wherein bail orders have been passed, thereby obviating the need for separate sureties and bonds in each case. ¶¶29

Ramji vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 1969 of 2026

Ramji

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 5 Others

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Deepak Shukla, Buddh Sagar
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 applicant, the applicant has prayed that this Court may be pleased to direct the learned Court below not to insist the petitioner to file separate sureties and bonds in each and every three cases and accept only two sureties and one personal bond in lieu of all 10 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 10 cases arising out of following Case Crime Numbers :-

¶14

Case Crime No. 75/2025, under Sections 305(A), 331(4) BNS, Police Station Hariyawan, District Hardoi.

¶15

Case Crime No. 295/2025, under Sections 305(A), 331(4) BNS, Police Station Sandila, District Hardoi.

¶16

Case Crime No. 118/2025, under Sections 305(A), 331(4) BNS, Police Station Sandila, District Hardoi.

¶17

Case Crime No. 297/2025, under Sections 305(A), 331(4) BNS, Police Station Sandila, District Hardoi.

¶18

Case Crime No. 256/2025, under Sections 305(A), 331(4) BNS, Police Station Tadiyawan, District Hardoi.

¶19

Case Crime No. 169/2025, under Sections 305(A), 331(4) BNS, Police Station Hariyawan, District Hardoi.

¶20

Case Crime No. 324/2025, under Sections 305(A), 317(2), 331(2) BNS, Police Station Atrauli, District Hardoi.

¶21

Case Crime No. 317/2025, under Sections 305(A), 317(2), 331(2) BNS, Police Station Atrauli, District Hardoi.

¶22

Case Crime No. 430/2025, under Section 109(1) BNS and Sections 3/25/27(1)

¶23

NA528 No. 1969 of 2026

¶24

¶25

Arms Act, Police Station Atrauli, District Hardoi.

¶26

Case Crime No. 001, under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, Police Station- Hariyawan, District Hardoi

¶27

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.

¶28

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).

¶29

Considering the aforesaid fact, the petition is disposed off with a direction to the applicant to furnish a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- 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.

¶30

May 15, 2026 V. Sinha

¶31

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶32

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

Ramji v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramji v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 5 Others

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

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

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

Shahban vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home

Rajesh Kumar Mishra and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Rahul Ramchandra Saini @ Rahul Saini and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another