HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 994 of 2025 AFR Court No. - 15 HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J. 1. The applicants are aggrieved by the sureties fixed by the learned trial court while granting bail to them by orders dated 01.08.2025 and 25.07.2025. As per the impugned orders, only local sureties have to be furnished by the applicants. 2. Shri Nijam Ahamad, learned counsel for the applicants contends that the applicants assailing the condition of local sureties required to be furnished by the applicants in the order granting bail submits that the learned trial court has made surety demands in a mechanical manner and without due application of mind to the relevant considerations as laid down in the judgement rendered by this Court in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. (Application U/S 482 No.2613 of 2023. Shri Nijam Ahamad, learned counsel for the applicants further contends that all the applicants have relations in district-Chandauli and can furnish sureties from the aforesaid district. 3. Learned A.G.A. submits that the sureties have to be fixed by the learned trial court as per law. 4. The criminal cases are pending against the applicants in district-Ambedkar Nagar. The five applicants have been Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Nijam Ahamad Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Prakash Nut And 4 Others .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) enlarged on bail by the learned trial court at Ambedkar Nagar. 5. However, they have not been set forth at liberty despite grant of bail due to their inability to furnish local sureties fixed by the learned trial court. The local sureties fixed by the court below in these facts and circumstances are arbitrary and negate the bails granted by the trial court. The applicants no.1 to 4 are residents of district Chandauli, while the applicant No.5 is the resident of district-Rohtas (Bihar). It is informed that the applicant No.5 can arrange sureties in district-Chandauli. 6. A large number of the persons who belong to marginalized sections of the society or are financially destitute are often unable to arrange or provide sureties fixed arbitrarily by the learned trial courts. To deal with this situation the Constitutional Courts have held that the order granting bail cannot be defeated by arbitrary surety demands and have cautioned against determining sureties in a mechanical manner. Obligation is cast by law upon the learned trial court to apply its mind to the socioeconomic status of the accused and other relevant factors in a case while determining the sureties to be furnished by the said accused. 7. While examining the issue pertaining to failure of accused persons to furnish sureties which are arbitrarily or mechanically fixed by the learned trial courts, this Court in Arvind Singh (supra) passed the following directions: "24. However despite unequivocal holdings of various constitutional courts the trial courts continue to adopt a rote response to a dynamic problem and approach the issue of fixation of sureties in a mechanical manner and neglect to make requisite enquiries as contemplated in the preceding parts of the judgment. The duties of the trial courts as well as other agencies while fixing sureties can be summed up as under:- (1) In case a prisoner cannot arrange the sureties fixed by the trial court the former can make an application to the learned trial court for a lesser surety. Material facts relating to the socioeconomic status and roots in the community NA528 No. 994 of 2025 2 of the prisoner shall be stated in the application. (2) Similarly it is bounden duty of the DLSA to examine the status of the prisoners who have been enlarged on bail but are not set at liberty within seven days of the bail order. In case the prisoners cannot arrange for sureties they may be advised and assisted to promptly move an application for refixation of the surety in light of this judgment. (3) Once the prisoner makes such application the trial court shall make an enquiry consistent with this judgment and pass a reasoned order depicting consideration of relevant criteria for fixing sureties with utmost expedition. (4) Every trial court is under an obligation to satisfy itself about the socioeconomic conditions of the prisoner and probability of absconding and his roots in the community and fix sureties commensurate with the same. The State authorities or other credible agencies as the court may direct to promptly provide the requisite details. (5). In case the prisoner is from another State and is unable to produce local sureties, sureties from the prisoner's home district or any other place of his choice determined by the court of competent jurisdiction of the said district and State shall be accepted by the trial court. (6) The prisoner/counsel may state the details of the socioeconomic status of the prisoner in the bail application in the first instance. This will facilitate an expeditious consideration of the issue related to sureties. 26. The right of fundamental liberties of the applicant are being curtailed on account of his poverty and inability to arrange multiple sureties for cases instituted against him." 8. Further, this Court has also repeatedly directed that the right of liberty after grant of bail should not be frustrated by arbitrary demands of sureties. Onerous surety conditions which are unrelated to the socioeconomic status of the applicants or are oblivious to various relevant considerations in the facts of a case end up curtailing the personal liberty of an accused after he is enlarged on bail. 9. In the instant case as seen above, the learned trial court has NA528 No. 994 of 2025 3 acted contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Arvind (supra) and has also made surety demands inconsistent with the preceding narrative. The applicants should not be asked to furnish local sureties from district-Ambedkar Nagar which they cannot produce. The learned trial court ought to have permitted the applicants to produce sureties from the respective places where they ordinarily reside or from where they can otherwise furnish the surety (as in the case of the applicant no.5). The order passed by the court below insofar as it requires the applicants to furnish local sureties is set aside. 10. In the wake of preceding discussion, the matter is remitted to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, district-Chandauli. 11. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli shall fix local sureties which the applicants have to produce for being enlarged on bail and in light of the judgment rendered by this Court in Arvind Singh (supra). The aforesaid sureties shall then be transmitted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli after verification to the learned trial court at Ambedkar Nagar. The said sureties shall be accepted by the learned trial court at Ambedkar Nagar. 12. Learned trial court at Ambedkar Nagar and learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli shall expedite the proceedings and ensure that the sureties submitted by the applicants are verified and processed at the earliest. 13. With the aforesaid direction, the application under Section 528 BNSS is disposed of. August 28, 2025 Ashish Tripathi NA528 No. 994 of 2025 4 (Ajay Bhanot,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHISH NAYAN TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ASHISH NAYAN TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ASHISH NAYAN TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench