HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 34271 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 court below to take common securities of the applicant who has been implicated in five 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 five cases bearing Case Crime nos. 239 of 2023, 246 of 2023, 184 of 2023, 189 of 2023 and 245 of 2023 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, Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ankit Kumar Singh, Samsher Aalam Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Vikas Balmiki Alias Maddy .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 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 to the last bail order granted in his favour, which are consecutively 5 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. 8. With the aforesaid observation, instant application stands disposed of. September 10, 2025 Shaswat NA528 No. 34271 of 2025 2 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad