Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 198128 (ALL)

PALLAV BHAT AND 2 OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME GOVT. LKO. AND 4 OTHERS

A482/9614/2025 · 2025-11-14

Tej Pratap Tiwari

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. - 9614 of 2025 Court No. - 34 HON'BLE TEJ PRATAP TIWARI, J. 1. Heard Sri Shishir Raj, learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. By means of the instant application, the applicants have prayed that this Court be pleased to direct the learned Court below not to insist the applicants to file surety bond in each and every five cases and accept only two sureties in lieu of both the five cases. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that it has become impossible for the applicant to submit surety in each of case in which he has been granted bail. He added that the applicant has been granted bail in all cases arising out of following Case Crime Numbers :- 1) Complaint Case No. 73538 of 2023, under Sections 379, 323, 504, 506 IPC before Judicial Magistrate-IIIrd, district Lucknow. 2) Case Crime No. 158 of 2023, under Sections 498-A IPC PS Hanumant Vihar, District Kanpur. 3) Section 12 DV Act, before the Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kanpur. 4) Application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., before Additional Family Court No.1, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Avinash Singh Vishen, Shishir Raj Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Pallav Bhat And 2 Others .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko. And 4 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 5) Case Crime No. 119 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 351 BNS PS Cantt. District Lucknow. 4. He next added that despite the Trial Court granted the bail, the applicant is still in jail and the applicant being poor person 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 petitioner 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 with a direction to the applicant to furnish a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- 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 14, 2025 NSC A482 No. 9614 of 2025 2 (Tej Pratap Tiwari,J.) Digitally signed by :- NARENDRA SINGH CHAUDHARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench