HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12227 of 2026 Court No. - 55 HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned AGA for the State. 2. The petition is filed with the following prayer: " (i) To, issue suitable order or direction to the Ld. Court concerned to accept the above said two bail bonds and sureties in six cases i.e. (i) Case Crime No. 161 of 2017, u/s 392 & 411 IPC, P.S.- Achhnera, District- Agra., (ii) Case Crime No. 197 of 2017, u/s 392 & 411 IPC, P.S. Achhnera, District- Agra, (iii) Case Crime No. 511 of 2017, u/s 396 & 412 IPC, P.S. Sikandra, District- Agra, (iv) Case Crime No. 544 of 2017, u/s 3/25 Arms Act., P.S.- Sikandra, District- Agra, (v) Case Crime No. 546 of 2017, u/s 414 IPC, P.S.- Sikandra, District- Agra and (vi) Case Crime No. 232 of 2018, u/s 2/3 U.P. Gangster Act., P.S.-Sikandra, District- Agra as security, so the petitioner may be released on bail. And/or" 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has been enlarged on bail in the above mentioned six cases, however petitioner is not in a position to produce the separate sureties for each bail order. He submits that common sureties be accepted. He has placed reliance over the judgment of Hon'ble The Apex Court passed in the case of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky Vs. The State of UP, in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.8915 of 2018 passed on 29.10.2018. The operative portion of the order of Hon'ble the Apex Court is quoted herein below: "However, by the impugned order, the High Court has modified the conditions of bail imposed by the Trial Court in the instant cases by directing the Trial Court to accept one common surety for all the cases and one surety each for the 31 cases. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the Court has granted bail to the petitioner, the petitioner is unable to execute the bail bonds because of the onerous conditions of bail imposed particularly the condition of producing 31 sureties. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Devashish Tripathi, Sunil Kumar Gaur Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Ajay .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. .....Respondent(s) Considering the submissions, the impugned order is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) and the same bond shall hold good for all 31 cases. There shall be two sureties who shall execute the bond for Rs. 30,000/- which bond shall hold good for all the 31 cases. It is clarified that the personal bond so executed by the Petitioner and the bond so executed by the two sureties shall hold good for all the 31 cases. With these observations, the Special Leave Petitions are disposed of. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of." 3. In view of the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court, the trial court is directed to accept one common surety for all the six cases. Petitioner shall execute a personal bond and the same bond shall hold good for all six cases. There shall be two sureties who shall execute the bond and shall hold good for all the six cases. It is clarified that the personal bond so executed by the petitioner and the bond so executed by the two sureties shall hold good for all the six cases. 5. With the above directions, this petition is disposed of. September 8, 2026 D. Tamang A227 No. 12227 of 2026 2 (Vikram D. Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- DHIRENDRA TAMANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad