Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:3570 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 409 of 2025 Applicant :- Govind Singh And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Anothers Counsel for Applicant :- Madhulika Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. Heard Shri Saurabh Yadav, holding brief of Mrs. Madhulika Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 528 Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short "BNSS") has been filed by the applicants to permit them to submit one surety and personal bond in the F.I.R./Case Crime No.0086/2023, under Sections 498-A, 323, 354, 377, 406, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Mahila Thana, District-Lucknow Central (Commissionerate of Lucknow). Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants are innocent and they have falsely been implicated in the case. He has next submitted that the case as mentioned above, all the applicants have been granted anticipatory bail by the court concerned. He says that the F.I.R. is the outcome of the matrimonial dispute and all the family members and other relatives have been roped in and it is very difficult for the applicants to arrange two sureties each in the case in compliance of bail orders. In the above circumstances as also taking note of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court on the condition of bail in the case(s) of Moti Ram and Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1978) 4 SCC 47, Hussainara Khatoon and Others vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Government of Bihar, Patna; (1980) 1 SCC 81; Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky vs. State of U.P. in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) 8915 of 2018; Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (2022) 10 SCC 51; Guddan @ Roop Narayan vs. State of Rajasthan (Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 2023 @ SLP (Criminal) No. 9756 of 2022); In Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail (SMWP (Criminal) No. 4/2021); Munish Bhasin and Others vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and Another (2009) 4 SCC 45; Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) 1 SCC 40; Sandeep Jain vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi (2000) 2 SCC 66 as also the judgment passed by the Karnataka High Court in case of Afsar Khan vs. State; I.L.R. 1992 KAR 2894 and the judgment passed in case of Sagayam @ Devasagayam vs. The State of Tamil Nadu; 2017 (3) CTC 291 and Sundar @ Ashok vs. Inspector of Police, T-16 Nazarathpet Police Station (Crl. O.P. No. 993 of 2017 dated 18.01.2017) by the Madras High Court, according to which, onerous condition and also heavy amount as surety should not be imposed while granting the bail, this Court is of the view that the prayer of the applicants is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The applicants are directed to produce two sureties for each offence in relation to bail granted to the applicants in the case arising out of the F.I.R./Case Crime No.0086/2023, under Sections 498-A, 323, 354, 377, 406, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Mahila Thana, District-Lucknow Central (Commissionerate of Lucknow), which shall be treated good. Order Date :- 20.1.2025 ML/- Digitally signed by :- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench