Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 44533 of 2024 Applicant :- Samad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent, and perused material on record. 2. By means of the present application, the applicant has sought for a suitable direction from this Court to the learned trial court to consider two sureties and a personal bond to hold good for all nine cases in which the applicant has been granted bail by the Courts. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been enlarged on bail by the Courts in cases outlined herein; (i) vide order dated 10.12.2024 in Case Crime No.511 of 2024, under Sections 303(2), 317(2), 3(5) B.N.S., P.S. Tronika City, Ghaziabad on furnishing personal bond of Rs.60,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, (ii) vide order dated 10.12.2024 in Case Crime No.535 of 2024, under Section 303(2), 317(2), 3(5) B.N.S., P.S. Tronika City, Ghaziabad on furnishing personal bond of Rs.60,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, (iii) vide order dated 10.12.2024 in Case Crime No.463 of 2024, under Section 303(2), 317(2), 3(5) B.N.S., P.S. Tronika City, Ghaziabad on furnishing personal bond of Rs.60,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, (iv) vide order dated 10.12.2024 in Case Crime No.476 of 2024, under Section 303(2), 317(2), 3(5) B.N.S., P.S. Tronika City, Ghaziabad on furnishing personal bond of Rs.60,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, (v) vide order dated 10.12.2024 in Case Crime No.481 of 2024, under Section 303(2), 317(2), 3(5) B.N.S., P.S. Tronika City, Ghaziabad on furnishing personal bond of Rs.60,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, (vi) vide order dated 10.12.2024 in Case Crime No.420 of 2024, under Section 303(2), 317(2), 3(5) B.N.S., P.S. Tronika City, Ghaziabad on furnishing personal bond of Rs.60,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, (vii) vide order dated 10.12.2024 in Case Crime No.457 of 2024, under Section 303(2), 317(2), 3(5) B.N.S., P.S. Tronika City, Ghaziabad on furnishing personal bond of Rs.60,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, (viii) vide order dated 7.12.2024 in Case Crime No.542 of 2024, under Section 303(2), 317(2), 317(5), 3(5) B.N.S., P.S. Tronika City, Ghaziabad on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, and (ix) vide order dated 18.12.2024 in Case Crime No.387 of 2024, under Section 303(2), 317(2) B.N.S., P.S. Tronika City, Ghaziabad on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. However, the applicant could not be set at liberty as he is unable to arrange the sureties in aforesaid cases due to lack of financial and human resources. The applicant has been languishing in jail since 26.10.2024, depriving fundamental rights to life and personal liberty, and relied upon Ramchandra Thangappan Aachari v. State of Maharashtra reported as 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2629 and a judgment passed by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court titled as Jagdish Arora v. Union of India, passed in MCRC No.4923 of 2022. 4. Per-contra, learned A.G.A. contends that sureties serve an essential role in securing the presence of the accused before the Court but fairly admits that sureties should be just and reasonable. 5. The Supreme Court in Ramchandra Thangappan Aachari (supra) has held that it would be a travesty of justice if the petitioner is unable to secure the benefit of a bail order for his inability to furnish local surety. This will infringe the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution for the person who continues to be detained despite a bail order in his favour. The Division Bench of the High Court in Jagdish Arora (supra) is of the view that the power of amending or deleting any condition imposed by the Court under Section 439(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. has not been expressly provided in Cr.P.C. Therefore, the only course for seeking and granting modification/deletion of such condition is by invoking the inherent powers of the Court vested under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure the end of justice. The object behind bestowing the inherent power of this Court is to do complete justice and to prevent miscarriage of justice. 6. Thus, the applicant's fundamental right to personal liberty cannot be curtailed on account of his poverty and inability to arrange multiple sureties to secure release from jail despite having bail orders in his favour. 7. Therefore, the trial court is directed to release the applicant on furnishing the personal bonds for each case and two sureties to the satisfaction of the Court concerned for all nine cases. For clarity, if the applicant furnishes personal bonds against each case to the satisfaction of the trial court and two sureties against any of the cases referred herein above, he shall be released in all nine cases. The trial Court shall not press for separate sureties for each case to release the applicant in compliance of bail orders. 8. With the aforesaid observations the application is allowed and decided accordingly. Order Date :- 3.1.2025 Anil K. Sharma Justice Vinod Diwakar Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad