IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-7605-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.02.2026 Ashu Mohammad ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Deepak Kumar Bartia, Advocate for the petitioner.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking direction to the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate to the effect that the petitioner may be permitted to furnish a single surety bond in all the FIRs, whereby he has been granted bail by the Court concerned.

2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in thirteen FIRs registered against him under Section 136 of the Electricity Act at different police stations. It is further submitted that the petitioner has a permanent abode and there is no likelihood of his absconding or evading the process of law. Although the petitioner has been granted bail in all the thirteen FIRs, as detailed in Annexure P-1, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, however, the condition requiring him to furnish separate bail bonds with one surety in each case is excessively onerous. The petitioner is a daily-wage earner and is financially incapable of arranging multiple sureties, thereby rendering the bail orders illusory. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is willing to furnish a single surety bond of a reasonably higher amount, as may be directed by the Court to secure his presence in all the cases. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hani Nishan @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky v. State of Uttar Pradesh (SLP (Crl.) Nos. 8914–8915 of 2018), wherein the Apex Court, in similar circumstances, deprecated onerous surety conditions and granted appropriate relief. Accordingly, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed, thereby permitting the petitioner to furnish a single surety bond for all thirteen cases/FIRs.

3. Notice of motion.

4. Mr. Apoorv Garg, Addl. A.G., Haryana, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and has submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality in the bail orders, whereby the petitioner has been directed to furnish surety in each case as the same is required to secure his presence. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. This Court has heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been granted bail in all thirteen FIRs registered against him under Section 136 of the Electricity Act by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra. It is also evident that the petitioner is a daily-wage earner and the condition imposed by the Court concerned requiring him to furnish separate bail bonds with one surety in each case is onerous in nature and has the effect of rendering the orders granting bail practically unworkable. The object of imposing conditions of bail is only to secure the presence of the accused during trial and not to impose such stringent or excessive conditions which defeat the very purpose of grant of bail. The petitioner has a permanent place of residence and there is nothing on record to suggest that he is likely to abscond or misuse the concession of bail.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hani Nishan @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky’s case (supra) has categorically held that insistence on multiple sureties in a large number of cases is unjustified and that a common personal bond and surety bonds can be accepted to operate in all the cases, so as to avoid frustrating the grant of bail itself. The principle laid down therein squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Keeping in view the totality of circumstances, the financial condition of the petitioner and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the condi