Allahabad High Court
Nizamuddin @ Raju vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home ... on 17 November, 2025
Author: Rajeev Singh
Bench: Rajeev Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:74203
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9151 of 2025
Nizamuddin @ Raju
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Vipin Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 14
HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.
3. This application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to direct the trial Court to allow the applicant to submit only a personal bond and two sureties in lieu of 28 cases.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant was implicated in 33 cases, out of which, he has been acquitted in 5 cases. The detail of 28 cases is as under:
(1) Case Crime No. 67/2004, u/s 323, 336, 427, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C., P.S.- Laliya, District- Balrampur. (2) Case Crime No. 16/2004, u/s 380, 411 I.P.C. & 3(1) U.P. Gangster Act, P.S.- Kotwali Jarwa, District- Balrampur. (3) Case Crime No. 23/2004, u/s 110(g) Cr.P.C., P.S.- Laliya, District- Balrampur. (4) Case Crime No. 147/2016, u/s 110(g) Cr.P.C., P.S.- Laliya, District- Balrampur. (5) Case Crime No. 187/2006, u/s 3 U.P. Gunda Act, P.S.- Laliya, District- Balrampur. (6) Case Crime No. 357/2006, u/s 379 & 411 I.P.C., P.S.- Kotwali Dehat, District- Balrampur. (7) Case Crime No. 01/2007, u/s 307 I.P.C. and 3(1) U.P. Gangster Act, P.S.- Laliya, District- Balrampur. (8) Case Crime No. 210/2008, u/s 110(g) Cr.P.C., P.S.- Laliya, District- Balrampur. (9) Case Crime No. 310/2008, u/s 3 U.P. Gunda Act, P.S.- Laliya, District- Balrampur. (10) Case Crime No.103/2009, u/s 110(g) Cr.P.C., P.S.- Laliya, District- Balrampur. (11) Case Crime No. 206/2013, u/s 392 I.P.C., P.S.- Etiyathok, District- Gonda. (12) Case Crime No. 389/2013, u/s 380 I.P.C., P.S.- Laliya, District- Balrampur. (13) Case Crime No. 393/2013, u/s 392, 411, 120-B I.P.C., P.S.- Laliya, District- Balrampur. (14) Case Crime No. 463/2013, u/s 394, 397 & 411 I.P.C., P.S.- Payagpur, District-Bahraich. (15) Case Crime No. 371/2013, u/s 394, 311 I.P.C., P.S.- Fakharpur, District- Bahraich. (16) Case Crime No. 492/2013, u/s 41, 411, 413 I.P.C., P.S.- Payagpur, District- Balrampur. (17) Case Crime No. 629/2013, u/s 392, 411 I.P.C., P.S.- Rishiya, District- Bahraich. (18) Case Crime No. 16/2018, u/s 395, 341 and 412 I.P.C., P.S.- Kotwali Uttraula, District- Balrampur. (19) Case Crime No. 142/2018, u/s 3 U.P. Gunda Act, P.S.- Laliva, District- Balrampur. (20) Case Crime No. 97/2018, u/s 307 I.P.C., P.S.- Kotwali Utraula, District- Balrampur. (21) Case Crime No. 06/2013, u/s 392, 411 I.P.C., P.S.- Maharajganj, District- Faizabad. (22) Case Crime No. 393/2013, u/s 392, 411, 120-B IP.C., P.S.- Harriya, District- Balrampur. (23) Case Crime No. 636/2013, u/s 392, 506 I.P.C., P.S.- Bhinga, District- Shrawasti. (24) Case Crime No. 357/2018, u/s 379, 411 I.P.C., P.S.- Koywali Dehat, District- Balrampur. (25) Case Crime No. 34/2014, u/s 3(1) U.P. Gangster Act, P.S.- Visheshwarganj, District- Bahraich. (26) Case Crime No. 208/2018, u/s 392 I.P.C., P.S.- Kotwali Uttraula, District- Balrampur. (27) Case Crime No. 209/2018, u/s 307 I.P.C., P.S.- Kotwali Uttraula, District- Balrampur. (28) Case Crime No. 210/2018, u/s 3/25 of Arms Act, P.S.- Kotwali Uttraula, District- Balrampur."
5. It has been submitted that the applicant has been granted bail by the trial court as well as by this Court in all the aforesaid cases, but furnishing of 56 sureties in 28 different cases is almost impracticable as the applicant is very poor person and he will not be able to arrange 56 sureties to get bail.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky Vs. The State of Uttar Praesh [SLP (Crl.) No.8914-8915/2018].
7. Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that it is always the discretion and satisfaction of the trial court, so far as the acceptance of the sureties is concerned.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the rival parties, it appears that the only grievance of the applicant appears to be that, despite having obtained the order of the bail in all the cases, he is not able to come out of the prison for the reason that he is unable to find separate sureties for each case and, thus, a prayer has been made that, applicant be permitted to file same sureties in all the 28 cases and a suitable direction in this regard be given to the trial court.
9. The acceptance of the sureties and their verification is the prerogative of the trial court and the same, in any case, could not be controlled by this Court. Sufficient guidelines in this regard have already been given by the High Court on administrative side to the subordinate courts. However, as far as the grievance of the applicant, pertaining to the fact that he is not in a position to arrange separate sureties for 28 cases, is concerned, the answer to this apprehension and grievance is implicit in Section 441-A of Code of Criminal Procedure/Section 486 of B.N.S.S., which is reproduced as under:-
"Declaration by sureties- Every person standing surety to an accused person for his release on bail, shall make a declaration before the Court as to the number of persons to whom he has stood surety including the accused, giving therein all the relevant particulars."
10. Perusal of this Section shows that, a person, who is intending to be the surety of any accused person, is obliged to declare before the Court that apart from the person, to whom he is standing surety, for how many other accused persons, he has stood surety. Therefore, the texture of the Section 441-A of the Cr.P.C./Section 486 of B.N.S.S., which clearly reflects that a person may stand surety for more than one accused person and in more than one case. So there appears no bar for a person to stand surety in more than one case and also for more than one accused person.
11. However, as stated earlier, the status, verification and the competency of the surety will always be assessed by the trial court before acceptance.
12. Thus, it is directed that, if same sureties are placed before the trial court and they are otherwise competent and their status and other particulars have been duly verified, the trial court, in its discretion, may accept the same in all the cases mentioned hereinbefore.
13. With the aforesaid observations, the application is disposed of.
(Rajeev Singh,J.) November 17, 2025 Arpan