Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:146405 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 31299 of 2025 Applicant :- Jony Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Pathak 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 direct the learned court below to take common securities of the applicant who has been implicated in seven cases. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicant sought the direction of this Court in shape of instructing the trial court to permit common sureties for all seven cases bearing Case Crime nos. 102 of 2025, 90 of 2025, 19 of 2025, 4 of 2025, 69 of 2025, 46 of 2025 and 54 of 2025 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 20.05.2025 passed by learned court below, although thereafter till 28.7.2025 applicant has already been extended bail in consecutive 7 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 common 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. However, it is made clear that applicant is hereby directed to prefer bail bond and submit the same prayer before learned court concerned in light of judgement rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky Vs. State of U.P., decided on 29.10.2018 in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 8914-8915 of 2018. Order Date :- 23.8.2025 Shaswat Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad