HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 1281 of 2025 Court No. - 14 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. 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 seven cases and accept only two sureties and one personal bond in lieu of all the seven cases. The learned counsel appearing 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 seven cases arising out of following Case Crime Numbers :- 1)Case Crime No. 33 of 2025, under sections 303(2), 317(2) of B.N.S., PS- Shardanagar/Lakhimpur Kheri. 2) Case Crime No. 86 of 2025, under sections 305 (A), 331(4), 317(2) of B.N.S., PS-Shardanagar/Lakhimpur Kheri. 3)Case Crime No. 109 of 2025, under sections 305, 331(4), 317(2) of B.N.S., PS-Padua/Kheri. 4)Case Crime No. 160 of 2025, under sections 305, 331(4), 317(2) of Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Surendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Yunus .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) B.N.S., PS-Nighasn/Kheri. 5)Case Crime No. 300 of 2025, under sections 305(A), 317(2) of B.N.S., PS-Padua/Kheri. 6)Case Crime No. 318 of 2025, under sections 305(A), 317(2) of B.N.S. & section 3/25 of Arms Act, PS-Padua/Kheri. 7)Case Crime No. 321 of 2025, under sections 305(A), 317(2) of B.N.S., PS-Padua/Kheri. . He next added that despite the Trial Court granted the bail in aforesaid matters, the applicant is still in jail. Being a 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. September 19, 2025 AKS NA528 No. 1281 of 2025 2 (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench