HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4732 of 2025 Court No. - 16 HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 2. By means of the instant applicant, the applicant has prayed that this Court may be pleased to direct the learned court below to allow the applicant to file only two sureties and one personal bond in lieu of all the cases. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there are five cases pending against the applicant under the N.I.Act in which the applicant is accused, which are as under: 1) Complaint No.48923/2023, under Sections 138 of N.I.Act, Police Station Alambagh, District Lucknow. 2) Complaint No.561/2023, under Sections 138 of N.I.Act, Police Station Alambagh, District Lucknow. 3) Complaint No.94907/2023, under Sections 138 of N.I.Act, Police Station Alambagh, District Lucknow. 4) Complaint No.27774/2023, under Sections 138 of N.I.Act, Police Station Alambagh, District Lucknow. 5) Complaint No.129962/2024, under Sections 138 of N.I.Act, Police Station Alambagh, District Lucknow. 4. It has been submitted that the applicant has been granted bail in Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Krishna Gopal, Arun Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ghanshyam Verma .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko .....Opposite Party(s) Complaint Case Nos.27774 of 2023 and 48923 of 2023. He submits that he will move bail application in rest of the three cases, which are bailable as mentioned in para 5 of the application, as aforesaid. He further 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. 5. He next added that the trial court granted the bail in the aforesaid two cases. Being poor person, he is unable to produce the sureties in each cases. It is further submitted by 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 petitioner to submit separate personal bonds and two sureties to hold good in all the cases. 6. 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). 7. Considering the aforesaid facts, the application 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. November 11, 2025 Sachin A482 No. 4732 of 2025 2 (Brij Raj Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MEHROTRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench