SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
         CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10469 of 2026

Satish Chandra Sharma
                                                            .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)                      :   Ravindra Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                 :   G.A.

Court No. - 73
                 HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

1. Learned A.G.A. submits that instructions have been received and has
no objection in case the bail application is heard on merits.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State
and perused the record.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is
Lekhpal and it is alleged that the applicant has demanded Rs.5,000/- for
handing over possession. Thereafter, the complainant made a complaint
and a trap team was constituted and the applicant was apprehended. The
applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant
has explained criminal history in paragraph 6 of the rejoinder affidavit.
Applicant is languishing in jail since 21.1.2026 and in case he is released
on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the
trial.

4. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not
dispute factual matrix of the case.

5. Learned AGA has pointed out the criminal antecedents of the
Applicant. No material or circumstance has been brought to the notice of
this court with regard to tampering of evidence or intimidating of witness
in previous criminal cases. In Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh,
(2012) 9 SCC 446, the Apex Court in para 30 has observed:
                                                        BAIL No. 10469 of 2026
                               2


"We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a history-
sheeter we may not be understood to have said that a history-sheeter is
never entitled to bail. But, it is a significant factor to be taken note of
regard being had to the nature of crime in respect of which he has been
booked."

6. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020
(11) SCC 648, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that pendency of
several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for
refusal of bail.

7. In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, it is not
the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise
adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate
witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any
material that applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law. If the
accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail
only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on
basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused,
hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just
on the ground that he had criminal antecedent.

8. The principle that Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception has been well
recognised by Apex Court more specifically on the touch stone of Article
21 of the Constitution. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex
Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of Investigation
and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51. Learned AGA has not shown any
exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the
applicant.

9. No material, facts or circumstances has been shown by learned AGA
that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or the
accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would
intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert
justice or tamper with the evidence.

10. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the
attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or
                                                        BAIL No. 10469 of 2026
                               3


circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or
thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of
repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown
by learned AGA for the State.

11. Learned AGA for the State has not shown any material or
circumstances that the accused/applicant is not entitled to bail in larger
interests of the public or State.

12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence,
evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for
the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.
The bail application is allowed.

13. Let the applicant Satish Chandra Sharma involved in Case Crime
No.02 of 2026, under Sections 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police
Anti Corruption Organization Bareilly, District Bareilly be released on
bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following
conditions:-

i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

ii. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

iii. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed,
unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant shall make
himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when
required.

iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of
which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is
suspected.

v. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as
to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police
officer or tamper with the evidence.
                                                                                          BAIL No. 10469 of 2026
                                                                  4


                                    vi. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of
                                    the Court.

                                    vii. In the event, the applicant changes his residential address, the
                                    applicant shall inform the court concerned about new residential address
                                    in writing.

                                    14. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall
                                    be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.



                                                                                    (Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)
                                    May 7, 2026
                                    Bhaskar




Digitally signed by :-
BHASKAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad