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

Allahabad HC20 May 2026NA528/2060/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single personal bond and two sureties accepted across multiple bail cases; Section 528 BNSS application; Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky, SLP (Crl.) No.8914-8915/2018 (SC order dated 29.10.2018) relied upon; bail conditions; surety hardship for poor accused; Case Crime Nos. 54, 87, 88, 101, 102, 103 of 2026; Ss. 303(2)/317(2) BNS 2023; erstwhile Ss. 379/411 IPC; Ss. 3/25 Arms Act; District Amethi; Rs. 50,000 personal bond; disposed on May 20, 2026; Lucknow Bench; Shree Prakash Singh, J.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the applicant to furnish a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of the like amount in one case, to be treated as valid in all other cases wherein bail orders have been passed (following the ratio of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky, SLP (Crl.) No.8914-8915/2018). ¶¶21

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

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 2060 of 2026

¶3

Faheem

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.	Home Deptt. Lko.		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Vinod Kumar Pandey, Rakshit : G.A.	Pandey, Singh	Lalit Narayan

¶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 six cases and accept only two sureties and one personal bond in lieu of all six 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 six cases arising out of following Case Crime Numbers :-

¶11

(1) Case Crime No. 54 of 2026 Under Sections 303 (2), 317 (2) B.N.S. 2023 (erstwhile Sections 379/411 I.P.C.) Police Station-Bhale Sultan Shaheed Smarak, District-Amethi.

¶12

(2) Case Crime No. 87 of 2026 Under Sections 303 (2)/317 (2) Β.Ν.S. 2023 (erstwhile Sections 379/411 I.P.C.) Police Station-Gauriganj, DistrictAmethi.

¶13

(3) Case Crime No. 88 of 2026 Under Sections 303 (2), 317 (2) B.N.S. 2023 (erstwhile Sections 379/411 I.P.C.) Police Station-Guariganj, DistrictAmethi.

¶14

NA528 No. 2060 of 2026

¶15

¶16

(4) Case Crime No. 101 of 2026 Under Sections 303 (2), 317 (2) B.N.S. 2023 (erstwhile Sections 379/411 I.P.C.) Police Station-Jagdishpur, DistrictAmethi.

¶17

(5) Case Crime No. 102 of 2026 Under Sections 303 (2)/317 (2) B.N.S. 2023 (erstwhile Sections 379/411 I.P.C.)Police Station-Jagdishpur, DistrictAmethi.

¶18

(6) Case Crime No. 103 of 2026 Under Sections 3/25 Arms Act Police Station-Jagdishpur, District-Amethi.

¶19

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.

¶20

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).

¶21

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.

¶22

May 20, 2026

¶23

Mayank

¶24

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶25

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Faheem 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

Similar cases

Faruk Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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

Siraj Sikandar @ Mohd. Siraj Sikandar and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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

Mohd. Javed and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Satyam @ Deependra Chaurasiya and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another