The Allahabad High Court has clarified that there is no legal prohibition on a person acting as a surety in more than one case, provided that the value of his property exceeds the total surety amount and the Court is satisfied about his sufficiency and fitness.
Referring to Sections 485 and 486 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the Court observed that,
“…………..it is clear that a person can submit his sureties for more than one accused in same case or different case, subject to satisfaction of court regarding his sufficiency and fitness. Therefore, there is no bar for a person to stand as surety for more than one accused person for their release on bail, subject to his sufficiency or capacity.”
The observation was made by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal while hearing a bail application filed by accused Jagroop in a case related to Kasya police station of Kushinagar district.
The applicant was booked under Sections 229, 233, 237, 246, 318(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and sought release on bail during the pendency of trial.
According to the facts of the case, the applicant had acted as a surety for accused persons in several other cases. The State raised an objection contending that a person cannot stand as a surety in more than one case and pointed out that the applicant had filed an affidavit before the trial court declaring that he had not stood surety in any other matter. However, upon verification, it emerged that the applicant owned property worth approximately ₹18.70 lakh.
The principal legal issue before the Court was whether a person can act as a surety for more than one accused or in more than one case.
While dealing with this issue, the Court analysed the relevant provisions of the BNSS (earlier Sections 441 and 441A of the Cr.P.C.) and held that these provisions do not impose any restriction on a surety to stand only in one case.
Besides this, the Court examined that the legislative intent is merely to require a disclosure by the surety of the cases in which he has already furnished surety, so that the Court can assess his capacity and valuation of property.
The Court further observed that different formats of surety declarations are in use across different districts of Uttar Pradesh, and that some of these formats are inconsistent with the law. In certain districts, declaration forms contain a condition that a surety shall not stand surety in any other case, despite the absence of any statutory provision to that effect.
Expressing serious concern over this practice, the Court directed all district courts,
“………..to adopt the format of declaration prevalent in district Mathura wherein in clause V, detail of cases in which the person has taken surety including the case in question has been mentioned and declaration should not contain the averments that sureties will not stand as surety for any other accused person unless his surety is not sufficient for want of valuation or capacity.”
Finding that the applicant possessed sufficient property, the Court held that there was no legal bar on him acting as a surety in more than one case and accordingly granted him conditional bail. However, with regard to the allegation of filing a false affidavit, the trial court was granted liberty to proceed in accordance with law.
The High Court also directed that a copy of the order be circulated to all District Judges in Uttar Pradesh for compliance.
Case: Jagroop vs State of U.P.
Date of Order: 27.01.2026
See Order: Jagroop vs State of U.P.
