Disposed¶38

Gaurav Singh v. the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko.

Allahabad HC6 Feb 2026NA528/441/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Same sureties in multiple bail cases; Section 528 BNSS application; Section 441-A CrPC declaration by sureties; sixteen sureties in eight cases impracticable for poor applicant; personal bond and two sureties; acceptance and verification of sureties is trial court's prerogative; discretion of court below to accept common sureties; Hani Nishad v. State of U.P. (SC) relied by counsel; Gaurav Singh v. State of U.P.; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Rajeev Singh, J.; decided 6 February 2026.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the court below that if the same sureties are placed before it and are otherwise competent, with status and other particulars duly verified, it may in its discretion accept the same sureties in all eight cases. ¶38

Gaurav Singh vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko. — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether an accused who has obtained bail in eight separate cases may be permitted to file the same sureties (or only a personal bond and two sureties) in lieu of furnishing sixteen separate sureties, and whether the High Court can direct the court below in this regard.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

The acceptance of sureties and their verification is the prerogative of the trial court and cannot be controlled by the High Court; sufficient guidelines have already been given to subordinate courts on the administrative side.

¶30

Key takeaways

Section 441-A of the Cr.P.C. (introduced by the 2006 amendment) requires a proposed surety to declare prior suretyships, and its texture reflects that a person may stand surety for more than one accused person and in more than one case; there is no bar to standing surety in more than one case.ratio¶32
It is directed that if the same sureties are placed before the court below and they are otherwise competent, with their status and other particulars duly verified, the court below may, in its discretion, accept the same sureties in all eight cases; the status, verification and competency of the surety will always be assessed by the trial court before acceptance.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Rajeev Singh, J.), Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 441 of 2026, decided February 6, 2026 — Bail sureties in multiple cases. The applicant, already granted bail by the court below and by this Court in eight criminal cases at Police Station Poorakalandar, District Ayodhya (seven registered under various sections of the B.N.S. and one under Sections 420, 323, 342, 395, 386, 506, 342 I.P.C.), was unable to arrange sixteen sureties and prayed to be permitted to submit only a personal bond and two sureties, relying on Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky v. State of U.P., SLP (Crl.) No. 8914-8915/2018 (SC). Held: (i) acceptance and verification of sureties is the prerogative of the trial court and cannot be controlled by the High Court; (ii) Section 441-A Cr.P.C. (2006 amendment), requiring a declaration by sureties of prior suretyships, shows that a person may stand surety for more than one accused and in more than one case — there is no bar to offering the same sureties across multiple cases; (iii) directed that if the same sureties are placed before the court below and are otherwise competent, with status and particulars duly verified, the court below may, in its discretion, accept them in all the cases. Application finally disposed of.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 441 of 2026

Gaurav Singh

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

The State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vaibhav Srivastava, Vishnu Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 14

¶8

HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.

¶9

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

¶10

2. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant to direct the court below to allow the applicant to submit only a personal bond and two sureties in lieu of eight cases.

¶11

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in eight cases, details of which are as under:

¶12

(i). Case Crime No.549 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 308(5), 351(3), 316(2), 318(4) and 111(2), 6 B.N.S., Police Station Poorakalandar, District - Ayodhya.

¶13

(ii). Case Crime No.0557 of 2025, under Sections 352, 308(5), 351(3), 126(2), 318(4) and 111(2) B.N.S., Police Station Poorakalandar, District - Ayodhya.

¶14

(iii). Case Crime No.576 of 2025, under Sections 316(2), 310(2), 308(5), 351(3), 352, 115(2) and 111(2) 6 B.N.S., Police Station Poorakalandar, District - Ayodhya.

¶15

(iv). Case Crime No.620 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3),

¶16

NA528 No. 441 of 2026

¶17

¶18

191(2), 316(2), 310(2), 111(2)(B), 308(6) B.N.S., Police Station Poorakalandar, District - Ayodhya.

¶19

(v). Case Crime No.655 of 2025, under Sections 420, 323, 342, 395, 386, 506, 342 I.P.C., Police Station Poorakalandar, District - Ayodhya.

¶20

(vi). Case Crime No.690 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352, 310(2), 351(3), 317(2), 317(3), 308(5), 318(4) and 111(2)(B) B.N.S., Police Station Poorakalandar, District - Ayodhya.

¶21

(vii). Case Crime No.746 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 352, 115(2), 351(3), 316(2), 318(4) and 111(2)(B) B.N.S., Police Station Poorakalandar, District - Ayodhya.

¶22

(viii). Case Crime No.840 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 310(2), 352, 351(3), 115(2), 318(4) and 111(2)(B) B.N.S., Police Station Poorakalandar, District - Ayodhya.

¶23

4. It has been submitted that the applicant has been granted bail by the court below as well as by this Court in all the aforesaid cases, but furnishing of sixteen sureties in eight different cases is almost impracticable as the applicant is very poor person and he will not be able to arrange sixteen sureties to get bail.

¶24

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh [SLP (Crl.) No.8914-8915/2018] .

¶25

6. Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that it is always the discretion and satisfaction of the trial court, so far as the acceptance of the sureties is concerned.

¶26

7. Having heard learned counsel for the rival parties, it appears that the only grievance of the applicant appears to be that, despite having obtained the order of the bail in all the cases, he is not able to come out of the prison for the reason that he is unable to find separate

¶27

NA528 No. 441 of 2026

¶28

¶29

sureties for each case and, thus, a prayer has been made that, applicant be permitted to file same sureties in all the eight cases and a suitable direction in this regard be given to the court below.

¶30

8. The acceptance of the sureties and their verification is the prerogative of the trial court and the same, in any case, could not be controlled by this Court. Sufficient guidelines in this regard have already been given by the High Court on administrative side to the subordinate courts. However, as far as the grievance of the applicant, pertaining to the fact that he is not in a position to arrange separate sureties for eight cases, is concerned, the answer to this apprehension and grievance is implicit in Section 441-A of Code of Criminal Procedure, which is reproduced as under:-

¶31

"Declaration by sureties- Every person standing surety to an accused person for his release on bail, shall make a declaration before the Court as to the number of persons to whom he has stood surety including the accused, giving therein all the relevant particulars."

¶32

9. Perusal of this Section shows that, a person, who is intending to be the surety of any accused person, is obliged to declare before the Court that apart from the person, to whom he is standing surety, for how many other accused persons, he has stood surety. Therefore, the texture of the Section 441-A of the Cr.P.C., which has been introduced by way of amendment made in the year 2006 clearly reflects that a person may stand surety for more than one accused person and in more than one case. So there appears no bar for a person to stand surety in more than one case and also for more than one accused person.

¶33

10. However, as stated earlier, the status, verification and the competency of the surety will always be assessed by the trial court before acceptance.

¶34

11. Thus, it is directed that, if same sureties are placed before the court below and they are otherwise competent and their status and other particulars have been duly verified, the court below, in its discretion, may accept the same in all the cases mentioned

¶35

NA528 No. 441 of 2026

¶36

¶37

hereinbefore.

¶38

12. With the aforesaid observations, the application is finally disposed of .

¶39

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

¶40

February 6, 2026

¶41