# Prakash Nut & Ors v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 90
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-28
- **Case number:** Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 994 of 2025
- **Bench:** Ajay Bhanot
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/prakash-nut-ors-v-state-of-u-p-54753
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

G.A.

Issue for consideration
Challenge raised to sureties fixed by the learned
trial court while granting bail.

Headnotes
Sureties in bail-The right of liberty after grant
of bail -should not be frustrated by arbitrary
demands of sureties- onerous surety conditions
which are unrelated to the socioeconomic status
of the applicants-are oblivious to various
relevant considerations in the facts of a case -
curtail the personal liberty of an accused after
he is enlarged on bail- learned trial court has
acted contrary to the law - applicants should not
be asked to furnish local sureties which they
cannot produce- the applicants should be
permitted
to
produce
sureties
from
the
respective places where they ordinarily reside -
or from where they can otherwise furnish the -
impugned
order
set
aside.
Application
allowed.
Held:
A large number of the persons who belong to
marginalized sections of the society or are
financially destitute are often unable to arrange
or provide sureties fixed arbitrarily by the
learned trial courts. To deal with this situation
the Constitutional Courts have held that the
order granting bail cannot be defeated by
arbitrary surety demands and have cautioned
against determining sureties in a mechanical
manner. Obligation is cast by law upon the
learned trial court to apply its mind to the
socioeconomic status of the accused and other
relevant factors in a case while determining the
sureties to be furnished by the said accused.
Application allowed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited

## Text

90 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
discretion to issue a direction that all the
subsequent sentences run concurrently with
the previous sentence, however discretion
has to be exercised judiciously depending
upon the nature of the offence or the
offences committed and the facts in
situation. However, there must be a specific
direction or order by the court that the
subsequent sentence to run concurrently
with the previous sentence.

15. From perusal of records, it
transpires that the petitioner has been
convicted separately in five different
incidents having different case crime
numbers lodged by various first informants
and all the five cases have been decided by
the separate judgments though, on a single
date. Therefore, in light of the principles as
laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in
Mohd. Zahid (supra), there is no illegality
in the order impugned.

16. In view of the above and for the
reasons discussed, there is no merit in the
matter.

17. Accordingly, the instant petition is
dismissed.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 90
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 28.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 994 of 2025

Prakash Nut & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Nijam Ahamad

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Issue for consideration
Challenge raised to sureties fixed by the learned
trial court while granting bail.

Headnotes
Sureties in bail-The right of liberty after grant
of bail -should not be frustrated by arbitrary
demands of sureties- onerous surety conditions
which are unrelated to the socioeconomic status
of the applicants-are oblivious to various
relevant considerations in the facts of a case -
curtail the personal liberty of an accused after
he is enlarged on bail- learned trial court has
acted contrary to the law - applicants should not
be asked to furnish local sureties which they
cannot produce- the applicants should be
permitted
to
produce
sureties
from
the
respective places where they ordinarily reside -
or from where they can otherwise furnish the -
impugned
order
set
aside.
Application
allowed.
Held:
A large number of the persons who belong to
marginalized sections of the society or are
financially destitute are often unable to arrange
or provide sureties fixed arbitrarily by the
learned trial courts. To deal with this situation
the Constitutional Courts have held that the
order granting bail cannot be defeated by
arbitrary surety demands and have cautioned
against determining sureties in a mechanical
manner. Obligation is cast by law upon the
learned trial court to apply its mind to the
socioeconomic status of the accused and other
relevant factors in a case while determining the
sureties to be furnished by the said accused.
Application allowed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
1. Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.
Home Deptt. (Application U/S no. 82 No.2613
of 2023

List of Acts
Nil

List of Keywords
8 All. Prakash Nut & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
91
Surety demands; curtailing the personal liberty
of an accused after he is enlarged on bail; right
of liberty after grant of bail; arbitrary demands
of sureties; Onerous surety conditions.

Appearances of parties
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Nijam Ahamad,
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)

1. The applicants are aggrieved by the
sureties fixed by the learned trial court
while granting bail to them by orders dated
01.08.2025 and 25.07.2025. As per the
impugned orders, only local sureties have
to be furnished by the applicants.

2. Shri Nijam Ahamad, learned
counsel for the applicants contends that the
applicants assailing the condition of local
sureties required to be furnished by the
applicants in the order granting bail
submits that the learned trial court has
made surety demands in a mechanical
manner and without due application of
mind to the relevant considerations as laid
down in the judgement rendered by this
Court in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P.
Thru.
Prin.
Secy.
Home
Deptt.
(Application U/S 482 No.2613 of 2023.
Shri Nijam Ahamad, learned counsel for
the applicants further contends that all the
applicants
have
relations
in
districtChandauli and can furnish sureties from the
aforesaid district.

3. Learned A.G.A. submits that the
sureties have to be fixed by the learned trial
court as per law.

4. The criminal cases are pending
against the applicants in district-Ambedkar
Nagar. The five applicants have been
enlarged on bail by the learned trial court at
Ambedkar Nagar.

5. However, they have not been set
forth at liberty despite grant of bail due to
their inability to furnish local sureties fixed
by the learned trial court. The local sureties
fixed by the court below in these facts and
circumstances are arbitrary and negate the
bails granted by the trial court. The
applicants no.1 to 4 are residents of district
Chandauli, while the applicant No.5 is the
resident of district-Rohtas (Bihar). It is
informed that the applicant No.5 can
arrange sureties in district-Chandauli.

6. A large number of the persons who
belong to marginalized sections of the
society or are financially destitute are often
unable to arrange or provide sureties fixed
arbitrarily by the learned trial courts. To
deal with this situation the Constitutional
Courts have held that the order granting
bail cannot be defeated by arbitrary surety
demands and have cautioned against
determining sureties in a mechanical
manner. Obligation is cast by law upon the
learned trial court to apply its mind to the
socioeconomic status of the accused and
other relevant factors in a case while
determining the sureties to be furnished by
the said accused.

7.
While
examining
the
issue
pertaining to failure of accused persons to
furnish sureties which are arbitrarily or
mechanically fixed by the learned trial
courts, this Court in Arvind Singh (supra)
passed the following directions:

"24.
However
despite
unequivocal
holdings
of
various
constitutional courts the trial courts
continue to adopt a rote response to a
dynamic problem and approach the issue of
fixation of sureties in a mechanical manner
and neglect to make requisite enquiries as
contemplated in the preceding parts of the
92 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
judgment. The duties of the trial courts as
well as other agencies while fixing sureties
can be summed up as under:-

(1) In case a prisoner cannot
arrange the sureties fixed by the trial court
the former can make an application to the
learned trial court for a lesser surety.
Material
facts
relating
to
the
socioeconomic status and roots in the
community of the prisoner shall be stated in
the application.

(2) Similarly it is bounden duty of
the DLSA to examine the status of the
prisoners who have been enlarged on bail
but are not set at liberty within seven days
of the bail order. In case the prisoners
cannot arrange for sureties they may be
advised and assisted to promptly move an
application for refixation of the surety in
light of this judgment.

(3) Once the prisoner makes such
application the trial court shall make an
enquiry consistent with this judgment and
pass
a
reasoned
order
depicting
consideration of relevant criteria for fixing
sureties with utmost expedition.

(4) Every trial court is under an
obligation to satisfy itself about the
socioeconomic conditions of the prisoner
and probability of absconding and his roots
in
the
community
and
fix
sureties
commensurate with the same. The State
authorities or other credible agencies as
the court may direct to promptly provide
the requisite details.

(5). In case the prisoner is from
another State and is unable to produce
local sureties, sureties from the prisoner's
home district or any other place of his
choice
determined
by
the
court
of
competent jurisdiction of the said district
and State shall be accepted by the trial
court.

(6) The prisoner/counsel may state
the details of the socioeconomic status of the
prisoner in the bail application in the first
instance. This will facilitate an expeditious
consideration of the issue related to sureties.

26. The right of fundamental
liberties of the applicant are being curtailed
on account of his poverty and inability to
arrange multiple sureties for cases instituted
against him."

8. Further, this Court has also repeatedly
directed that the right of liberty after grant of
bail should not be frustrated by arbitrary
demands
of
sureties.
Onerous
surety
conditions which are unrelated to the
socioeconomic status of the applicants or are
oblivious to various relevant considerations
in the facts of a case end up curtailing the
personal liberty of an accused after he is
enlarged on bail.

9. In the instant case as seen above, the
learned trial court has acted contrary to the
law laid down by this Court in Arvind
(supra) and has also made surety demands
inconsistent with the preceding narrative. The
applicants should not be asked to furnish
local sureties from district-Ambedkar Nagar
which they cannot produce. The learned trial
court ought to have permitted the applicants
to produce sureties from the respective places
where they ordinarily reside or from where
they can otherwise furnish the surety (as in
the case of the applicant no.5). The order
passed by the court below insofar as it
requires the applicants to furnish local
sureties is set aside.

10. In the wake of preceding discussion,
the matter is remitted to the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, district-Chandauli.

11. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Chandauli shall fix local sureties which the
applicants have to produce for being
enlarged on bail and in light of the
8 All. Sunil Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
93
judgment rendered by this Court in Arvind
Singh (supra). The aforesaid sureties shall
then be transmitted by the learned Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Chandauli
after
verification to the learned trial court at
Ambedkar Nagar. The said sureties shall be
accepted by the learned trial court at
Ambedkar Nagar.

12. Learned trial court at Ambedkar
Nagar
and
learned
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate, Chandauli shall expedite the
proceedings and ensure that the sureties
submitted by the applicants are verified and
processed at the earliest.

13. With the aforesaid direction, the
application under Section 528 BNSS is
disposed of.
---------
(2025) 8 ILRA 93
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.

Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 5804 of 2025

Sunil Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Manoj Kumar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Issue for consideration
Compromise in FIR u/s 376 IPC

Headnotes
Compromise in section 376 IPC-Chargesheet submitted under Section 376 I.P.C.-
applicant
and
opposite
party
no.2
were
classmates and there was dispute between the
two-led to lodging of F.I.R.- both have entered
into compromise and does not want to pursue
the matter- no point in getting the trial
continued-as the star witness would not support
the prosecution case. Application allowed.
(E-9)

Case Law Cited
Nil

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code

List of Keywords
Compromise, Section 376 I.P.C.

Appearances of parties
Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar, Counsel
for Opposite Party :- G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Avnish Saxena, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel the applicant,
learned counsel for opposite party no.2

2. The instant application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved with a
prayer to quash the entire criminal
proceedings of Case No.36783 of 2023
(State Vs. Sunil Singh) as well as charge
sheet
dated
05.11.2021
and
cognizance/summoning
order
dated
30.01.2025, arising out of Case Crime
No.482 of 2021, under Sections 323, 504
and 376 I.P.C., Police Station Gulriha,
District Gorakhpur, pending before the
court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fast
Track Court/Additional
Chief Judicial
Magistrate,
Gorakhpur
in
terms
of
compromise entered into between the
parties.
The
charge-sheet
has
been
submitted including under Section 376
I.P.C.

3. Sri Girish Pandey, holding
brief of learned counsel for the applicant
submits that the applicant and opposite