Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:85083 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 16024 of 2025 Applicant :- Rahees Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Asheesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Present application has been preferred with prayer to grant permission to produce a single surety before court below in all the cases in which the applicant has been granted bail by learned court below which is I-Case Crime no. 56 of 2025 under Section 136 Indian Electricity Act, PS- Shamli, District-Shamli, II- Case Crime no. 59 of 2025 under Section 136 Indian Electricity Act, PS- Shamli, District Shamli, III-Case Crime no. 60 of 2025 under Section 136 Indian Electricity Act, PS- Shamli, District Shamli, IV- Case Crime no. 99 of 2025, under sections 331(4), 305(a) BNS, PS- Shamli, District Shamli, V- Case Crime no. 59 of 2025 under Section 305 BNS, PS- Budhana, District Muzaffar Nagar and further seeking direction upon the court below to consider the single surety in all the above mentioned cases produced by the applicant. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicant sought the direction of this Court in shape of instructing the trial court to permit single sureties for all five cases wherein, applicant has already been enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant application. 5. During the course of argument a precise query has been raised before learned counsel for applicant that whether applicant has ever preferred the bail bond in pursuance to the aforesaid cases wherein he has been enlarged on bail and if so, whether there is a specific denial from learned trial court in shape of asking separate sureties for separate cases. In response to the query, learned counsel for applicant fairly submitted that applicant never preferred any bail bond in pursuance to any of aforesaid cases in which he has been enlarged on bail and there is no specific denial from learned trial court concerned. 6. In view of aforementioned discussions and after perusing the records, this Court finds that no prejudice has been caused to the applicant as applicant never intended to prefer bail bonds in pursuance to first bail order dated 25.03.2025, although thereafter till 08.04.2025 applicant has already been extended bail in consecutive four cases but at no point of time he intended to prefer bail bonds and as such there is hardly any denial available in record with regard to two surety in each and ever bail bond. Hence, no cause of action arises in favour of applicant to pursue the instant application. 7. The instant application stands dismissed accordingly. Order Date :- 20.5.2025 Shaswat Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad