HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 15174 of 2026 Court No. - 77 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State. 2. Present application has been preferred with prayer to direct the learned trial courts not to insist the applicant to file separate surety bonds in the four criminal cases in light of Hon'ble Supreme Court order dated 29.10.2018 passed in Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky Vs. State of U.P. Special Leave to appeal (Crl.) No.8914-8915 of 2018 and may also be directed to the learned trial courts to accept one surety in lieu of all four criminal cases mentioned below: i. Case Crime No.417 of 2025, under Sections 303(2), 317(4), 111(2) kha- BNS [corresponding Sections 379, 414 IPC] Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Agra. ii. Case Crime No.117 of 2025, under Sections 303(2), 317(2) BNS [corresponding Sections 379, 414 IPC] Police Station Malpura, District Agra. iii. Case Crime No.404 of 2025, under Sections 303(2), 317(4), 111 BNS [corresponding Sections 379, 414 IPC] Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Agra. iv. Case Crime No.99 of 2025, under Sections 303(2), 317(4), 111(2) BNS [corresponding Sections 379, 414 IPC] Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Agra. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kiran Tiwari, Mahesh Chandra Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Lucky .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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 four cases, wherein the 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 never intended to prefer bail bonds in pursuance to first bail order to the last bail order granted in his favour, which are consecutively 04 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. The instant application stands disposed of accordingly. 8. However, the applicant will be at liberty to prefer application in shape of considering two sureties and personal bond in all the 04 cases, wherein he has been enlarged on bail 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. May 7, 2026 Ashish/- NA528 No. 15174 of 2026 2 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHISH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad