HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 38665 of 2025 Court No. - 76 HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State-respondent. 2. This application has been filed by applicant to direct the court below to accept one surety between same parties Brahma Prakash Sharma Vs. Manju Mandal, under Section 138 N.I. Act, out of Nine cases Criminal Complaint Case No.41265 of 2017, 41266 of 2017, 41267 of 2017, 41268 of 2017, 41269 of 2017, 41270 of 2017, 41271 of 2017, 41272 of 2017, 41273 of 2017 pending before A.C.M.M.-III, Kanpur Nagar. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that nine cases have been lodged against the applicant under Section 138 N.I. Act by the same complainant. The applicant has prayed that the court concerned be directed to accept one surety in all the nine cases in view of the judgment of Hon'ble The Apex Court passed in the case of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky Vs. The State of UP, in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.8915 of 2018 passed on 29.10.2018. The operative portion of the order of Hon'ble the Apex Court is quoted herein below: "However, by the impugned order, the High Court has modified the conditions of bail imposed by the Trial Court in the instant cases by directing the Trial Court to accept one common surety for all the cases and one surety each for the 31 cases. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the Court has granted bail to the petitioner, the petitioner is unable to execute the bail bonds because of the onerous conditions of bail imposed particularly the condition of producing 31 sureties. Considering the submissions, the impugned order is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) and the same bond shall hold good for all 31 cases. There shall be two sureties who shall execute the bond for Rs. 30,000/- which bond shall hold good for all the 31 cases. It is clarified that the personal bond so executed by the Petitioner and the bond so executed by the two sureties shall hold good for all the 31 cases. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arun Kumar Tiwari, Raghvendra Kumar Pal Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Smt. Manju Mandal .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) With these observations, the Special Leave Petitions are disposed of. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of." 4. In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the applicant, in the event the applicant files any application for submitting common surety before the court concerned, the court concerned is directed to consider the same in accordance with law and in light of judgment of Supreme Court in Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky (supra). 5. With the above directions, this application is disposed of finally. October 7, 2025 Bhaskar NA528 No. 38665 of 2025 2 (Vikram D. Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- BHASKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad