HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7081 of 2025 Court No. - 15 HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J. 1. The applicant is aggrieved by the two sureties fixed in each case while granting bail to him by this Court as well as by the trial court in the following eight cases: 1. FIR No. 384/2017, Police Station-Alambagh, District Lucknow under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC passed by District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, PC Act, Lucknow vide order dated 07.11.2022 in Bail Application No. 9424 of 2022. 2. FIR No. 266/2021 Police Station-Sungarhi, District Pilibhit under Sections 420, 406 IPC passed by District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, PC Act, Lucknow vide order dated 07.01.2025 in Bail Application No. 3297 of 2024. 3. FIR No. 505/2021 Police Station- Puranpur, District Pilibhit under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 IPC passed by District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, PC Act, Lucknow vide order dated 05.12.2024 in Bail Application No. 3120 of 2024. 4. FIR No. 212/2022, Police Station-Purnapur, District Pilibhit under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 IPC passed by District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, PC Act, Lucknow vide order dated 05.12.2024 in Bail Application No. 3128 of 2024. 5. FIR No. 352/2019 Police Station- Civil Lines under Sections Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Santosh Kumar Tirpathi, Surekha Patel Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Amit Kumar Mishra .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko .....Opposite Party(s) 406,420 IPC passed by this Court vide order dated 18.09.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 34491 of 2024. 6. FIR No. 496/2021 Police Station- Kotwali, District Fatehpur under Sections 406, 504, 506, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC passed by this Court vide order dated 11.09.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 32708 of 2024 7. FIR No. 547/2019 Police Station- Kotwali City, District Bijnor under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 323, 504, 506 IPC passed by this Court vide order dated 30.08.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 29181 of 2024. 8. FIR No. 261/2021 Police Station- Kotwali City, District Bijnor under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 120B, 471 IPC passed by this Court vide order dated 29.07.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 27739 of 2024. 2. Sri Prateek Raj, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Santosh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been enlarged on bail in 8 cases depicted above. Two sureties have been fixed in each of the aforesaid 8 cases. Hence the applicant is required to furnish 16 sureties to be set forth at liberty in pursuant to the aforesaid bail orders. The applicant is unable to furnish the aforesaid sureties in each of the aforesaid cases. The demands of two sureties in each of the 8 cases has become very onerous for the applicant to comply with, and has virtually defeated his right to enjoy his liberty on the strength of the bail granted by this Court. He has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh in SLP (Crl. No. 8914-8915/2018) wherein it was held as under: "8. 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 A482 No. 7081 of 2025 2 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." 3. Demands of multiple sureties in the facts of this case defeat the purpose of bail granted by this Court. The right of liberty after grant of bail should not be frustrated by multiples demands of sureties. Onerous conditions which are unrelated to the socioeconomic status of the accused/applicant or are oblivious to various relevant considerations in the facts of a case end up curtailing the personal liberty of an accused after he/she is enlarged on bail. 4. In the wake of preceding discussion, the matter is remitted to the concerned learned trial court/ learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. 5. Learned trial court/ learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned is directed to fix two sureties to his/her satisfaction after ascertaining the socioeconomic condition of the applicant and the said sureties shall be accepted in all the aforesaid 8 cases in light of Hani Nishad (supra). 6. The learned trial court shall ensure that the right of bail of the applicant granted by the trial court is not frustrated by arbitrary demands of sureties which are unrelated to the socioeconomic status of the applicant. 7. With the aforesaid observations the application U/S 482 is disposed of. August 28, 2025 Pravin A482 No. 7081 of 2025 3 (Ajay Bhanot,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRAVIN VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench