Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:20953 Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 4231 of 2025 Applicant :- Raju And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Kant Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent, and perused material on record. 2. By means of the present application, the applicants have 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 five cases in which the applicants have been granted bail by the Courts. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been enlarged on bail by the Courts in cases outlined herein; (i) vide order dated 27.01.2025 in Case Crime No.188 of 2024, under Sections 331(4), 305, 317(2), 61(2), 3(5) B.N.S., P.S. Newadiya, Jaunpur on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, (ii) vide order dated 27.01.2025 in Case Crime No.356 of 2024, under Section 305, 331(4), 317(2), 3(5) B.N.S., P.S. Jalalpur, Jaunpur on furnishing personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, (iii) vide order dated 24.01.2025 in Case Crime No.130 of 2024, under Sections 305, 331(4), B.N.S., P.S. Newadiya, Jaunpur, on furnishing personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, (iv) vide order dated 22.01.2025 in Case Crime No.198 of 2024, under Sections 109, 313, 61(2), 3(5) B.N.S., P.S. Newadiya, Jaunpur on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, (v) vide order dated 30.01.2025 in Case Crime No.198 of 2024, under Section 3/25 of Arms Act, P.S. Newadiya, Jaunpur 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 applicants could not be set at liberty as they are unable to arrange the sureties in aforesaid cases due to lack of financial and human resources. The applicants have been languishing in jail since 27.01.2025, 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 applicants' fundamental right to personal liberty cannot be curtailed on account of their poverty and inability to arrange multiple sureties to secure release from jail despite having bail orders in their favour. 7. Therefore, the trial court is directed to release the applicants on furnishing the personal bonds for each case and two sureties to the satisfaction of the Court concerned for all five cases. For clarity, if the applicants furnishe personal bonds against each case to the satisfaction of the trial court and two sureties against any of the cases referred herein above, they shall be released in all five cases. The trial Court shall not press for separate sureties for each case to release the applicants in compliance of bail orders. 8. With the aforesaid observations the application is allowed and decided accordingly. Order Date :- 13.2.2025 Shafique Justice Vinod Diwakar Digitally signed by :- SAFIKUR RAHAMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad