Musaraf Husain vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 686 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Musaraf Husain vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 2 April, 2026

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC-LKO:23264
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW 
 
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2401 of 2026   
 
   Musaraf Husain    
 
  .....Applicant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Applicant(s)   
 
:   
 
Dinesh Kumar, Satyawan Pandey   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 16
 
   
 
 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.       

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

By means of the instant application, the applicant has prayed that this Court may be pleased to direct the learned trial court not to insist the applicant to file separate sureties and bonds in each and every case and accept only two sureties and one personal bond in lieu of one case.

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that it has become impossible for the applicant to submit separate sureties and bonds in each of cases, in which, he has been granted bail. He added that the applicant has been granted bail in one case arising out of following Case Crime Number :-

1)Case Crime No. 0011 of 2026, under section 8/20 of the N.D.P.S. Act, PS - Bazarkhala, District -Lucknow. He next added that despite the Trial Court granted the bail in aforesaid matter, the applicant is still in jail. Being poo person, he is unable to produce the sureties. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that in similar circumstances, namely, in the case of Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh [SLP (Crl.) No.8914-8915/2018] the Supreme Court vide order dated 29.10.2018 has permitted the petitioners to submit separate personal bonds and two sureties of heavy amount to hold good in all the cases.

Referring the aforesaid judgement and order, he submits that the applicant may also be given the benefit of the ratio of the judgement passed in Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky (supra).

Considering the aforesaid fact, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the applicant to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- and two sureties of the like amount in one case, which shall be treated to be valid in all other cases wherein the bail orders have been passed.

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

April 2, 2026

AKS