Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 183805 (ALL)

SANTOSH TIWARI v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME DEPTT. U.P. LKO.

/9689/2025 · 2025-11-19

Brij Raj Singh

Special Leave Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9689 of 2025 Court No. - 16 HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the file, including the Annexures attached therewith. 2. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to allow the applicant to submit personal bonds and two sureties in one case which should be sufficient in four cases in which the applicant has been granted bail. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submit that it is impossible for the applicant to submit separate sureties in each case in which he has been granted bail. The learned counsel further submits that the applicant has been granted bail in all the cases. Despite the trial Court granting him bail, the applicant is still in jail inasmuch as the applicant being a poor person is unable to produce the sureties in each cases, details of which are as follows: "i. Case Crime No.0390 of 2022, under Section 396 I.P.C. Police Station Sandila, District Hardoi; ii. Case Crime No.433 of 2022, under Section 307 I.P.C. Police Station Kachchauna, District Hardoi; iii. Case Crime No.434 of 2022, under Section 3/25 of Arms Act, Police Station Kachchauna, District Hardoi, and Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Alok Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Santosh Tiwari .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) iv. Case Crime No.0221 of 2023, under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention ) Act, 1986, Police Station Sandila, District Hardoi. 4. 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 Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 29.10.2018 has permitted the applicant to submit personal bonds and two sureties of heavy amount to hold good in all the cases. 5. Considering the aforesaid fact, the petition is disposed of and it is directed that the applicant shall furnish a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- and two sureties of the like amount in one case which shall be treated to be valid in other three cases wherein the bail orders have been passed. November 19, 2025 Preeti A482 No. 9689 of 2025 2 (Brij Raj Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench