The Allahabad High Court has significantly eased bail conditions for indigent accused facing multiple criminal cases by holding that a single set of sureties and personal bond, valid in one case, may be accepted across all pending proceedings. This pragmatic ruling addresses the systemic burden on economically disadvantaged litigants who are otherwise trapped in pre-trial detention due to inability to furnish duplicate sureties.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Kapil, has been in judicial custody since 22.10.2016 across twelve distinct criminal cases registered in various police stations of Meerut district. These cases involve serious offences under the Indian Penal Code and the U.P. Gangster Act, including charges under Sections 302, 307, 394, 395, 396, 411, 412, 420, 120-B IPC, and Section 25 of the Arms Act. Despite being granted bail in one case on 05.01.2026, he remained incarcerated because he could not arrange two sureties for each of the remaining eleven cases.
Key Facts
- The applicant has been in custody since 22.10.2016
- He is described as a destitute individual unable to arrange multiple sets of sureties
- He was granted bail on 05.01.2026 in one case, but could not comply with surety requirements in others
- The twelve cases are pending trial and span over a decade, with no trial concluded
- The offences range from robbery, dacoity, and attempt to murder to illegal arms possession
Procedural History
- 22.10.2016: Applicant arrested and remanded in custody across multiple FIRs
- 05.01.2026: Bail granted in one case (Crime No. 895/2014), but applicant failed to furnish sureties for other cases
- 29.04.2026: Application filed under Section 528 BNSS before the Allahabad High Court seeking relaxation of surety requirements
Relief Sought
The applicant sought relief under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to permit the use of a single personal bond and one set of two sureties across all twelve pending cases, arguing that the requirement of duplicate sureties in each case is impractical and discriminatory against the poor.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 528 BNSS permits a court to accept a single personal bond and one set of two sureties across multiple pending criminal cases involving the same accused, where the accused is indigent and unable to furnish duplicate sureties.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant
Learned counsel for the applicant relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky v. State of U.P., wherein the Court held that sureties furnished in one case may be treated as valid for other cases pending against the same accused. Counsel argued that the requirement of separate sureties for each case imposes an unreasonable and discriminatory burden on economically disadvantaged persons, violating the principles of equality and proportionality under Article 21 of the Constitution. The applicant’s prolonged detention without trial, coupled with his inability to meet financial obligations for sureties, rendered the bail regime inaccessible.
For the Respondent
The Additional Government Advocate for the State did not oppose the application. The State acknowledged the applicant’s prolonged incarceration and the lack of prejudice to the investigation or public interest in accepting a unified surety arrangement. No counter-submission was made challenging the applicability of the Supreme Court’s precedent.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the object of Section 528 BNSS, which empowers the High Court to issue directions for the proper administration of justice in pending proceedings. It noted that the provision is inherently flexible and designed to prevent procedural rigidity from defeating substantive justice.
"The requirement of separate sureties in each case, when the accused is the same and the cases are pending before different courts, creates an artificial barrier to liberty for those who cannot afford it. This cannot be countenanced in a constitutional democracy."
The Court held that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hani Nishad was directly applicable. The principle laid down - that one set of sureties and personal bond may be accepted across multiple cases - is not merely procedural but rooted in the constitutional imperative of equal access to justice. The Court emphasized that the accused is not seeking discharge or acquittal, but merely a reasonable accommodation to secure liberty pending trial. The State’s non-opposition further reinforced the reasonableness of the request.
The Court also observed that the applicant’s detention since 2016, without trial conclusion in any case, underscores the urgency of ensuring that procedural formalities do not become instruments of prolonged incarceration.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The Court directed that the personal bond and two sureties furnished in any one of the twelve pending cases shall be deemed valid and sufficient for all other cases listed in the application. The applicant is entitled to be released on bail upon furnishing one personal bond and two sureties in any one case, with the same bond and sureties automatically applicable to the remaining eleven cases. The order is effective immediately.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Surety Requirements Are Not Case-Specific by Default
- Practitioners representing indigent accused facing multiple charges may now invoke Hani Nishad and Section 528 BNSS to seek unified surety arrangements
- Courts must evaluate whether separate sureties are genuinely necessary or merely a mechanical formality
- The burden shifts to the prosecution to demonstrate why a single surety arrangement would compromise public interest or investigation
Procedural Flexibility Under BNSS Is a Constitutional Imperative
-
Section 528 BNSS is not a mere procedural tool - it is a constitutional safeguard against arbitrary detention
-
Prolonged pre-trial detention due to inability to pay for duplicate sureties violates Article 21 and the presumption of innocence
-
Courts should proactively consider such applications, especially where accused have been in custody for years without trial
-
Always cite Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky v. State of U.P. as binding precedent when arguing for unified sureties
-
File applications under Section 528 BNSS before the High Court, not lower courts, for cross-case relief
-
Attach affidavits of indigence and custody duration to strengthen the application
