Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 157157 (ALL)

ROHIT THARU @ CHHANGA v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME DEPTT. DEPTT. LKO.

NA528/946/2025 · 2025-08-12

Shree Prakash Singh

Special Leave Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:47170 Court No. - 14 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 946 of 2025 Applicant :- Rohit Tharu @ Chhanga Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Jamal Ahamad Khan,Aakil Khan,Pragati Gautam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record. By means of the instant application, the applicant has prayed that this Court may be pleased to direct the learned Court below not to insist the applicant to file separate sureties and bonds in each and every four cases and accept only two sureties and one personal bond in lieu of all the four cases. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that it has become impossible for the applicant to submit separate sureties and bonds in each of cases, in which he has been granted bail. He added that the applicant has been granted bail in four cases arising out of following Case Crime Numbers :- 1) Case Crime No. 202 of 2025, under Section 317(2) of BNS, Police Station Ghazipur, District Lucknow. 2) Case Crime No. 204 of 2025, under Section 317(2) of BNS, Police Station Ghazipur, District Lucknow. 3) Case Crime No. 207 of 2025, under Section 317(2) of BNS, Police Station Ghazipur, District Lucknow. 4) Case Crime No. 213 of 2025, under Section 317(2) of BNS, Police Station Ghazipur, District Lucknow. He next added that despite the Trial Court granted the bail in aforesaid matters, the applicant is still in jail. Being poor person, he is unable to produce the sureties in each cases. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that in similar circumstances, namely, in the case of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh [SLP (Crl.) No.8914- 8915/2018] the Supreme Court vide order dated 29.10.2018 has permitted the petitioners to submit separate personal bonds and two sureties of heavy amount to hold good in all the cases. Referring the aforesaid judgement and order, he submits that the applicant may also be given the benefit of the ratio of the judgement passed in Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky (supra). Considering the aforesaid fact, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the applicant to furnish a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of the like amount in one case, which shall be treated to be valid in all other cases wherein the bail orders have been passed. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 kkv/ Digitally signed by :- KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench