A.F.R.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45385 of 2025 Jagroop .....Applicant(s)

Versus State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amrita Kashyap, Rohit Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 69 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.

1. Heard Sri Rohit Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anand Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.774 of 2025, under Sections-229, 233, 237, 246, 318(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) of BNS, 2023, Police Station-Kasaya, District-Kushinagar, during the pendency of the trial.

3. This matter was heard on 12.01.2026. On that date, court passed the following order:

"Put up this case in the week commencing 27.1.2026 as fresh, enabling the learned A.G.A. to seek instructions regarding status of the investigation as well as the fact whether there is any bar that a person cannot be the surety in more than one cases if the value of his land or property is more than the sureties taken by him.

Learned A.G.A. will also seek instruction regarding the amount of surety furnished by the applicant and the total value of the land of the applicant adduced to furnish sureties in different case crime numbers.

On the next date, the I.O. of this case shall remain present before this Court along with the relevant record."

4. In compliance of the order dated 12.01.2026, I.O., Sri Brahm Kumar Upadhyay, Sub-Inspector is present and has handed over the instructions to the learned AGA and learned AGA has apprised the court that apart from 10 cases mentioned in the FIR, the applicant has also submitted his surety in other cases but the detail of other cases could not be obtained because of non-availability of bail orders but learned AGA admitted on the basis of instruction that valuation of the property of applicant is about Rs.18.70 lakhs.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that valuation of the property of the applicant on which the applicant has taken the surety of the accused is of 18.70 lakhs, therefore, applicant can take sureties for more than one accused in view of Section 441A Cr.P.C. (Section 486 of BNSS) so long as the valuation of property is more than the total surety. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in the case of forgery committed, during proceeding of a court and in view of the bar u/s 215 BNSS regarding the offence u/s 229, 233, 236, 237, 242 to 248 and 267 of IPC, cognizance can be taken only on the basis of complaint not on the basis of FIR. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that Sections 318(2), 318(4), 338 BNSS are in the category of non-cognizable offence for which FIR cannot registered. Therefore, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that though the offences as mentioned above by the learned counsel for the applicant are non-cognizable under BNSS but Sections 336 (3) and 340 (2) of BNSS are cognizable offence whether the case made out under these sections or not that can be seen at the time of framing of charge and also submitted that a person cannot be sureties in more than one case but the learned AGA could not dispute that there is no provision which prohibits a person to become surety of more than one accused in more than one case so long as the valuation of property is more than total value of surety. Learned AGA has also submitted that the applicant filed a declaration before the court below while taking sureties in different cases as required by Section 441A Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 486 BNSS) wherein it is specifically mentioned by the applicant that he has not taken bail of any other accused and he will also not submit a surety for any other accused in any other case. Therefore, prima facie applicant has fil