HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 36832 of 2025 Court No. - 77 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Present application has been preferred with prayer to direct the learned trial court to accept the two sureties and personal bond in all the six cases, i.e., Case Crime Nos.7 of 2024, 263 of 2024, 258 of 2024, 170 of 2024, 90 of 2024, 170 of 2024, wherein the applicant has already been granted bail. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicant sought the direction of this Court in shape of instructing the trial court to permit two sureties for all six cases, wherein the applicant has already been enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant application. 5. During the course of argument, a precise query has been raised before learned counsel for applicant that whether applicant has ever preferred the bail bond in pursuance to the aforesaid cases wherein he has been enlarged on bail and if so, whether there is a specific denial from learned trial court in shape of asking separate sureties for separate cases. In response to the query, learned counsel for applicant fairly submitted that applicant never preferred any bail bond in pursuance to any of aforesaid cases in which he has been enlarged on bail and there is no specific denial from learned trial court concerned. 6. In view of aforementioned discussions and after perusing the records, this Court finds that no prejudice has been caused to the applicant as applicant never intended to prefer bail bonds in pursuance to first bail order to the last Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohd Faiz Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Noor Mohammad .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) bail order granted in his favour, which are consecutively six in numbers, but at no point of time he intended to prefer bail bonds and as such there is hardly any denial available in record with regard to two surety in each and ever bail bond. Hence, no cause of action arises in favour of applicant to pursue the instant application. 7. The instant application stands dismissed accordingly. 8. However, it is made clear that applicant is hereby directed to prefer bail bond and submit the same prayer before learned court concerned in light of judgement rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky Vs. State of U.P., decided on 29.10.2018 in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 8914-8915 of 2018. September 23, 2025 Saif NA528 No. 36832 of 2025 2 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad