MIRZA MOHD. ISMAIL BEG v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. DEPTT. OF HOME LKO
A482/8073/2025 · 2025-09-24
Shree Prakash Singh
Special Leave Petitionbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 166355 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 166355 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8073 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 trial court not to insist the petitioner to file separate sureties and bonds in each and every two cases and accept only two sureties and one personal bond in lieu of all two 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 two cases arising out of following Case Crime Numbers :- 1) Case Crime No. 398 of 2019 under Sections 392 and 411 of IPC, PS - Alambagh District - Lucknow. 2) Case Crime No. 246 of 2020 under Sections 2/3(1) of U.P. Gangster Act, PS - Alambagh District - Lucknow. He next added that despite the Trial Court granted the bail in aforesaid matters, the applicant is still in jail. Being 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Satyendra Nath Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mirza Mohd. Ismail Beg .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko .....Opposite Party(s)
dated 29.10.2018 has permitted the petitioner 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 off 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 24, 2025 Mayank A482 No. 8073 of 2025 2 (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench