HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7538 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 the learned trial court in the following nine cases: (i) Case Crime No. 0164/2022, U/S- 392/411 IPC, Police Station- Vikas Nagar, District- Lucknow. (ii) Case Crime No. 0120/2022, U/S- 392/411 IPC, Police Station- Indira Nagar, District- Lucknow. (iii) Case Crime No. 0229/2022, U/S- 392/411 IPC, Police Station- Jankipuram, District- Lucknow. (iv) Case Crime No. 0221/2022, U/S 394/411 IPC Police Station- Gudamba, District- Lucknow. (v) Case Crime No. 0243/2022, U/S- 394/411 IPC, Police Station- Gudamba, District- Lucknow. (vi) Case Crime No. 0304/2022, U/S 392/411 IPC, Police Station- Gudamba, District- Lucknow. (vii) Case Crime No. 0112/2022, U/S 379/411 IPC, Police Station- Vibhutikhand, District- Lucknow. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sudhaker Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Yogesh Bhatta .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) (viii) Case Crime No. 0443/2022, U/S- 379/411 IPC, Police Station- Chinhat, District- Lucknow. (ix) Case Crime No. 69/2023, U/S- 2/3 U.P. Gangster Act, Police Station- Vikas Nagar, District- Lucknow. 2. Shri Sudhaker Prakash, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been enlarged on bail in nine cases depicted above. Two sureties have been fixed in each of the aforesaid cases depicted above. Hence the applicant is required to furnish 18 sureties to be set forth at liberty 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 nine 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 judgement 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 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. A482 No. 7538 of 2025 2 4. In the wake of preceding discussion, the matter is remitted to the learned trial court/ learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District-Lucknow. 5. Learned trial court/ learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District-Lucknow 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 nine cases in light of Hani Nishad (supra). 6. The learned trial court shall ensure that the right of bail of the applicant granted by this 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. September 11, 2025 Arvind A482 No. 7538 of 2025 3 (Ajay Bhanot,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench