HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 34041 of 2025 Court No. - 77 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Present application has been preferred with prayer to direct the learned trial court to accept the two sureties and personal bond in all the 6 cases, wherein the applicant has already been granted bail. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicant sought the direction of this Court in shape of instructing the trial court to permit two sureties for all 6 cases, wherein applicant has already been enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Birendra Kumar Mishra, Byas Kumar Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Kapil Alias Nikki .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) never intended to prefer bail bonds in pursuance to first bail order to the last bail order granted in his favour, which are consecutively 6 in numbers, 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. 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. It is also submitted by learned counsel for applicant that bail orders which has been indicated by learned counsel for applicant pertains to different court wherein 5 bail orders pertains to Court of Session Judge, Agra and one pertains to court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, FTC, Agra and as such application/bail bond as directed above, to be preferred at the behest of applicant be accepted by learned District Judge, Agra and the same shall be decided in the light of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Hani Nishad (supra). 8. With the aforesaid observation, instant application stands dismissed. September 9, 2025 Shaswat NA528 No. 34041 of 2025 2 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad