IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

246 Date of decision: 09.10.2025 Krishan Lal ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Baljinder Singh Virk, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Onkar Singh Wahla, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

The instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for seeking directions to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karnal to accept single/common surety in 11 different FIRs registered under Sections 305, 317(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against the present petitioner.

2. It is contended that the petitioner has been implicated in 11 cases registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal and has been granted regular bail in all the said cases. The details of the same are tabulated as under:-

SN FIR Details Offence Bail order Surety No of amount surety

1 FIR No./264/01.06.2025 305, 317(2) Dated Rs.50,000/- One BNS 13.08.2025 by Ld.JMIC, Karnal

2 FIR No.310/22.06.2025 305, 317(2) Dated Rs.50,000/- One BNS 13.08.2025 by Ld.JMIC, Karnal

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is thus required to arrange for 11 sureties. Despite best efforts, he has been unable to arrange for such large number of sureties due to which he is still languishing in jail notwithstanding the order of bail having been passed about two months ago. He further submits that the inability on the part of the petitioner to arrange for such large number of sureties should not defeat the order granting bail itself.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of ‘Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky Vs. State of U.P.’ passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 8914-8915/2018 decided on 29.10.2018, wherein, the condition of furnishing two separate sureties in multiple criminal cases was modified. The petitioner therein was involved in 31 cases and thus was required to furnish 62 sureties in total. The Hon’ble Supreme Court modified the bail condition to require one personal bond and two sureties to be valid in all the 31 cases. He contends that the case of the petitioner would be covered by the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

5. Learned State Counsel on the other hand submits that the petitioner is involved in multiple cases and only one surety per case has been asked for, which cannot be said to be harsh or onerous. He however does not dispute the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of ‘Hani Nishad @

Mohammad Imran @ Vikky Vs. State of U.P.’ (supra).

6. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and have gone through the documents appended with the record and the judgments.

7. It remains undisputed that the petitioner has been granted bail vide orders dated 13.08.2025/22.08.2025 requiring one surety each for a sum of Rs.50,000/-.

8. The Supreme Court has issued various guidelines to release prisoners in jail in the matter of In re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail V/s Respondent (Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No.4 of 2021) reported as

2023(2) RCR (Crl.) 121. The relevant extract thereof reads thus:- “8. We call upon the Government of India to discuss this issue with NALSA so that necessary directions, if any, can be passed. Learned ASG would obtain instructions in that behalf by the next date. With a view to ameliorate the problems a number of directions are sought. We have examined the directions which we reproduce hereinafter with certain modifications:

"1) The Court which grants bail to an undertrial prisoner/convict would be required to send a soft copy of the bail order by e-mail to the prisoner through the Jail Superintendent on the same day or the next day. The Jail Superintendent would be required to enter the date of grant of bail in the e-prisons software [or any other software which is being used by the Prison Department).

2) If the accused